Chris Blattman’s Blog: “An open letter to Senator Chuck Grassley from an Iowan high school student”
Someone far younger than us has seen the false logic of the Republicans in resisting the selection of a Supreme Court Justice.
“The argument many Republicans are making is that Barack Obama is a ‘lame duck’ president, and, because “the people have not spoken,” he should not be allowed to nominate a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia.
However, you are running for reelection in Iowa this November. At that time, Iowans will go to the polls and their voice will be heard. Until then, who speaks for the people of Iowa? You, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, carry significant power in determining who gets to become the next Supreme Court Justice. But senator, since you, too, are in an election year, how can you possess the authority to make a decision that will affect the future of our country if ‘the people have not yet spoken’? Following the direction of the Republican’s logic, I politely ask you to step aside as chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee until the elections take place.”
Chris Blattman: Bonus points because the Harvard admissions committee will love this.
As taken from: Chris Blattman’s Blog, March 31, 2016
An Update; 4/4/2016 from productivedeath:
“An open letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley:
This year I and thousands of other young Iowans will be voting in their first election.
The argument many Republicans are making is that Barack Obama is a “lame duck” president, and, because “the people have not spoken,” he should not be allowed to nominate a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia.
However, you are running for reelection in Iowa this November. At that time, Iowans will go to the polls and their voice will be heard. Until then, who speaks for the people of Iowa? You, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, carry significant power in determining who gets to become the next Supreme Court Justice. But senator, since you, too, are in an election year, how can you possess the authority to make a decision that will affect the future of our country if “the people have not yet spoken”? Following the direction of the Republican’s logic, I politely ask you to step aside as chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee until the elections take place.
If you want to make critical decisions based on a constructed rationale, at least apply your creative thinking to all elected officials — including yourself.”
Jake Smith, senior, Roosevelt High School
Unfortunately, the logic doesn’t work. Grossly says the President should do nothing and by the same token he, Grassley, should also do nothing. Nobody should do nothing, dammit!
All the tea party senators are up for reelection.
They should do what they want Obama do; recuse themselves so the voters can have their say and none of their fascism.
The less Congress does, the happier the people are.
Doing nothing is doing something. It is the affirmative decision not to pursue the duties that the Constitution says reside in of the Senate.
Recommend using a better source that will bother to actually attribute to the student, Jake Smith of Des Moines:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/03/29/grassley-step-aside-until-after-election/82255722/
And why assume a high school senior already capable of some independent thought would desire to undermine his human potential by going to Harvard in 2016? Hey Jake, exercise caution before hawking your keen mind over to institutions of acadamnica that have helped to further fuel our present political imbalance.
Productive:
Hey, thanks for the update!
It should be more widely noted that any vote for any Republican Senate candidate in any state is in fact a vote for the inclinations and ideology of Mitch McConnell. With all Republican Senators voting in lock step with their “leaders” a vote for one is a vote for the leaders of that party. What any Senate candidate claims to stand for is irrelevant if that individual votes a strict party line. The same is true of the members of the House, though there seems to be more intra-party squabbling in that branch of the Congress.