Here is the full text of Sen. Lindsey Graham’s response to my letter.
Dear Ronald:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Supreme Court vacancy created by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia was one of the most consequential justices in the history of the Supreme Court, and our nation has greatly benefitted from his service.
Historically, I have supported judicial nominees that were qualified for the job, even if I disagreed with their philosophical views. However, in 2013, Democrats upset the traditional bipartisan cooperation required for confirming judges by exercising the nuclear option, which lowered the threshold for confirming judges. As a result, for the remainder of President Obama’s term in office, I do not believe that the Senate should hold a hearing or vote on a nominee to replace Justice Scalia.
As your United States Senator, my primary job is to understand and represent the interests of all South Carolinians. The opportunity to hear from you about the issues confronting our nation is not only essential to representative democracy, but allows me to better serve the people of South Carolina. We will not see eye-to-eye on every issue; however, I promise to always give your concerns the consideration they deserve.
I encourage you to visit my website — http://lgraham.senate.gov — as it will have information on the most recent activities before the U.S. Senate. You can also sign up for our e-mail newsletter, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube pages which will provide the latest information and updates on the major issues facing our state and our nation.
Thank you again for contacting me. I truly appreciate the opportunity to hear from you and am honored to have the opportunity to represent your interests in the U.S. Senate.
Sincerely,
Lindsey O. Graham
United States Senator
Please reconsider your stand on giving Merrick Garland a fair hearing.
To suggest that the people need to vote in November before you can consider a Supreme Court justice is both short sighted and an affront to the constitution. To suggest that President Obama is not the legitimate president because he is in the third year of his term shows distain for the constitutional mandated four year term. He has done his constitutional duty, it is time to do yours. You can’t be “Pro-constitution” only when it suites you. Where does this end? Next time do you say you won’t consider a nominee after mid-terms? This position is impossible to justify other than by considering political advantage.
Even if you don’t care about what is right, you know full well the chances of a Republican win in November is rapidly slipping away. In the end, obstructing Merrick Garland now will likely have the net effect of ensuring a far more leftist justice is confirmed next year. Is party loyalty worth that to you?
And just today you suggested that your actions are justified because you are doing what the Democrats would do in your shoes. You should have learned in kindergarten that that is not a legitimate way to justify your actions. If you want to act like a Democrat, then be a Democrat; however, wouldn’t it be better to show the Democrats and the nation that you can rise above petty partisanship.
I have long supported you with my vote. You must know that in the upstate you have strong opposition from the far right wing, yet I’ve been proud to support you. I hate to see you acting like one of Ted Cruz’s acolytes.
How stupid are the GOP Leaders
Really, with the chances of wining the fall election lessening every day, they keep saying they won’t even look at a SCOUS nominee. Now they create a special task force to convince Americans that the current president does not reflect the legitimate will of the people?
I’ve heard of people doubling down during a loosing streak at the poker table, but this is just ridiculous. In the end, the Democrats will win the White House and likely the Senate, then we will have a much more liberal Supreme Court due to this half-baked plan of the Republican leadership. And we wonder why Trump is popular for calling them stupid?
I recall a visit I made a couple of years ago to the home of a low income family with whom I had spent over two full years assisting as a social worker. I was delivering a donated computer so that the family, which included a bright sixteen year old high school student, a struggling seven year old and their semi-literate mother, could get internet access. I had promised them a computer because I found that even grade school teachers make the middle class assumption that there is a computer in the home, and high school teachers regularly give homework assignments to be done via the internet; yet, this family, like many with whom I worked, did not have internet nor even a computer. I had recently received word that the younger child would be retained due to a lack of academic progress.
As I spoke I found myself, not for the first time, putting the burden of the younger child’s success on her older sister. I did not like doing that but the older sister was the only one in the home capable of providing the daily assistance the seven year old needed if she were to have any chance of academic success. I had, by that point, been pressing this child to help her younger sister for two years. It wasn’t fair, I didn’t like putting that responsibility on a teenager, but I saw no other hope for her little sister. I knew full well that it was her mother’s responsibility to provide such assistance, but in this case, a single mother who is low functioning and semi-literate was simply not up to the task.
It is a trite cliché, but true none the less: life isn’t’ fair. Continue reading “Of Opportunity”
Not only is Trump not like Hitler, he is not even George Wallace and likely isn’t even a racist. I know this goes against the popular media refrain, but I do not see there is evidence to make these very serious charges. While it is easy to fall into this lazy habit of hyperbole, in the end the hype never lives up to the words. When that happens, the overall argument falls flat. We saw this when Al Gore’s movie promised Hurricane Katrina’s every year due to global warming. When it didn’t happen, many American’s wrote off climate change as a hoax. So too with Trump. When we advance to the general election this summer, Trump will abandon some of the radical rhetoric and move to a more palatable form of populism. When he does this, many Americans will see the over the top warnings about Trump as unfounded. We have already seen a preview of his playbook for the general election. A few weeks ago he told the NY Times that the whole “build a wall” business is no more than a negotiating strategy.
Let’s make an honest contrast of Hitler’s rise and Trump’s. By the time Hitler began his rise to power, not only did he have a private army (the SA or brown shirts), he had a track record of using violence to achieve political goals and he had a detailed plan for a movement based on a long history of anti-Semitism. Adolph Hitler was building a movement, Donald Trump is only promoting Donald Trump. Yes, one can draw superficial parallels, but to do so runs the risk of being discredited. Continue reading “No, Trump is not another Hitler”
The Cognitive Dissident 
Recent Comments