Tuesday, February 16, 2016

Explaining our intent (#2573)

     As long as our intentions are honorable and legal we are bound to them if we are to lead. Explaining our intent is therefore crucial to any interpretation as to our motives. We cannot help what the situations and circumstances are that we are currently experiencing. The most important thing is that we are true to our ideal of democratic principles. We follow current precedence in order to keep continuity. We look to our past to either remain or adjust our future. Either way we must hold dear to our intent. For it is our intent to not only uphold the law but to shape our society based upon the wishes and hopes of our electorate.
     If you are wondering if there is a subject I have in mind as the genesis of this posting then let me reveal it if you are unsure. Our President has an obligation to uphold the duties of his office. At this moment he needs to weigh the factors involved and then nominate a new supreme court justice. By following the law that guides this particular binding duty, we see our President has a few options. He can proceed to deciding his judicial candidate and then nominate him to our current Senate and then be obstructed in his attempt to get his judicial candidate confirmed while he is still in office, for approximately 330 more days. Or he can appoint his judicial candidate within the next 6 days or so through a legal recess appointment option, because the Senate is in recess and by that recess triggers a possible recess appointment, and have his judicial candidate seated on the court.
     Eventually, likely within less than a year, his candidate will still have to go before the Senate and be confirmed, but in the meantime his judicial candidate will have already started and acted in his/her duty as a bonafide supreme court justice. Either option has precedence and as such both should be weighed for their efficacy for not only the court but for the right of our President to not be obstructed in carrying out his constitutional duty. There may be a political backlash attached to either approach but that should be subservient to honorable intent.

1 comment:

popapaul30@gmail.com said...

The vacancy must be filled before November to avoid a constitutional crisis in the event of a tie in the electoral college, which is a strong possibility. Let's not see another Florida circus again.