Two Papers Get It Right, And What If John Adams Was Right Too?

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., attacked the McConnell strategy as “obstructionist.” But as the Washington Examiner noted, when a Republican president was a lame duck in 2007, Sen. Schumer insisted, “We should not confirm any [George W.] Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, except in extraordinary circumstances.”

The Orange County (Los Angeles, California) Register

and

Let the people decide in the November elections. Let the people choose a president in 2016, and senators — nine U.S. Senate seats are said to be in play — and go on from there. If the American people want a liberal, activist Supreme Court legislating from on high as the supreme branch of power, they'll decide that in November. And if they want a reserved, more conservative court, one that doesn't dictate to the legislature or goes out of its way to supersede legislative (meaning the people's) prerogative, Americans will decide that too.

All the rest is meat puppet mud wrestling. Yes, President Barack Obama has the right to appoint a successor. And yes, the Senate, now under Republican control, has the right to dismiss it.

Some of the more eager liberal mouthpieces have pulled out their hair in faux rage, saying the Republicans are treating the president with disrespect. They forget Democrats play the game the same way. Perhaps they forget how Democrats turned Bork into a verb.

If you don't know how Bork became a verb, then you might feel compelled to reconsider whether the president is being disrespected here. But that won't stop anyone from voting in November, will it?

The Chicago Tribune

Neither of these papers are conservative-leaning; neither of them advocate for Republican viewpoints.

Even left-leaning Politico quoted Obama in his rambling, unscripted after-speech remarks:

But when asked about his own vote to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito, Obama conceded that political foot dragging on judicial nominees is not unique to Republicans.

“I think what’s fair to say is that how judicial nominations have evolved over time is not historically the fault of any single party..."
...
But when asked if that response could be interpreted to mean he definitely intends to nominate a moderate, Obama had a quick response — “No.”

So remember, liberals, Obama won't nominate a moderate. Why then should a Republican President do so?

Remember that your side did the exact same thing, multiple times, that you're railing against the Republicans for doing. As always is the case.

It's called The Double Standard. The "Do As I Say, Not As I Do", of which your Obama is the master. He has the nerve to continue to "call the kettle black," blaming Republicans in Congress for the divisiveness he himself stoked for seven years, saying,

"the venom and rancor in Washington has prevented us from getting basic work done. Now, this would be a good moment for us to rise above that."

Really? Why don't you go first, Mr. President, on that point. This is the same person who said not too long ago that he would bypass Congress entirely if they didn't do as he liked: "We're not going to wait for legislation...I've got a pen and I've got a phone." Who needs other branches of the government, like Congress? Not Obama! As someone commented on one of the youtubes of that video, "What happened to 'We The People'?"

Who's the obstructionist?

And Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said this?

"...in a Washington Post opinion piece [Reid wrote] that if Senate Republicans block consideration of any Obama nominee, "they will ensure that this Republican majority is remembered as the most nakedly partisan, obstructionist and irresponsible majority in history."

Are some people really that dumb? It's laughable that anyone buys this line of horse manure anymore. It's more like those Republicans just joined the great company that preceded them in the Spin Room that is Washington, D.C., because you elected the most nakedly partisan, obstructionist and irresponsible President in history. And that opinion is coming, more and more, from liberal pundits and pols, not just from me!

As I heard one radio talkinghead say this week (and it wasn't Rush, Levin, Sean, Laura or Savage, in fact I don't recall ever hearing the name on this local radio station), that it is because of what the liberals have done in this country, that a Trump has been "created" at all. Another elaborates on this cause and effect here:

Remember, too, liberals taught us a valuable lesson about political correctness that many conservatives haven't forgotten: It's only offensive if you don't like the person saying it. When conservatives tried to accept the liberal rules of political correctness, pointing out Vice President Joe Biden's too-numerous-to-count slurs and gaffes, there was a collective shrug from the left.

So, if the rules are demonstrably stupid, and they only exist for the right, why play by them?

This is how Trump supporters came to be. They have taken the governor off the racecar.

So understand, liberals, that you are the reason Trump is succeeding as he is. Please, do us all a favor: come down off that high horse and let the original good and true freedoms remain that we conservatives want to preserve. After all,

John Adams didn't own slaves but rather employed (that is, paid) free blacks. For those who would point out that John Adams also did not oppose slavery, please note that that was singularly on the grounds it would be too divisive for the nation and that "legislation opposed to slavery should 'sleep for a time' until it was less polarizing." Your side didn't care a whit about "polarizing" the nation when it came to Roe v. Wade, even though your liberal Supreme Court "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has publicly fretted that the court’s decision to legalize abortion in Roe v. Wade came before America was ready for such a step, and that it helped unleash an anti-abortion backlash that continues today." So Ginsburg thought Roe v. Wade should have "slept for a time" until the country was ready for it, but it wasn't ok for John Adams to do the same? I'm not arguing in favor of slavery at any time or place, not by any stretch of the imagination. I'm just proving the point about more Double Standards.