Lindsey Graham: “[Only Some] Elections Have Consequences”

Let us be blunt. Sonia Sotomayor should never sit on the Supreme Court. Even without the hints of bigotry, she lacks the judgment, understanding and skill needed to make her a competent jurist, and she certainly does not display the kind of outstanding legal mind that should be elevated to the Supreme Court. She is, at best, a poser, and, at worst, an inconsistent tyrant.

Yet, she will be confirmed, and that’s fine. Everybody loves a fool, and history will simply add her to the growing list of albatrosses hanging around the well-feathered neck of Obama’s legacy.

But this post is not about Sonia Sotomayor. This post is about Lindsey Graham (RINO, SC) and those like him in either party.

Graham announced yesterday that he will support nominee Sotomayor because, as he put it, “elections have consequences.” But that is not a valid basis for supporting a President’s nominee. Indeed, the Constitution does not envision the Senate as a rubber stamp for a President’s appointments. Instead, the Senate is called upon to provide “advice and consent” on appointments, not to approve them without complaint.

If a nominee is inadequate, it is the duty of every Senator so finding to stand up in opposition to that nominee, and to demand that the President nominate someone else, someone the Senator can support. That’s called checks and balances. That’s how our government works. To surrender this role on the basis that the President has won an election is to abdicate one of the primary constitutional functions of a United States Senator.

Remember, Senator, the oath of office for Senators requires Senators to pledge to support and defend the Constitution and to faithfully discharge the duties entrusted to the office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Nothing in there says, “unless the other guy won an election.”

Nor can Graham's submissive desires be attributed to some political courtesy extended by one party to another. Indeed, the Democrats extended no such courtesies when they smeared Robert Bork, Douglas Ginsberg or Clarence Thomas, or when they prevented John Tower from becoming Reagan’s Secretary of Defense (an historical first), in a party-line vote, because of suggestions of “womanizing” and “alcoholism.”

And speaking of elections, might one wonder why Senator Graham only recognizes the consequences of the election of the President? Was the Senator himself not elected to represent the people of South Carolina? How does declaring an intent to ignore that mandate in favor of rubber stamping a President recent-elect satisfy that election? Or do only some elections have consequences?

Now admittedly, Graham also stated that he felt that Sotomayor was well-qualified. And if that had been his sole reasoning, one could quibble with his conclusion but not challenge the good faith basis of his decision. But he had to add that extra piece. . . his abdication of his role. . . his declaration of submission, and that is the problem.

It absolutely pains me to say this, Senator Graham, but look at Robert Byrd. Agree with his politics or not, Byrd fully understands his role as a check on the power of the Executive.

And let me not limit this criticism merely to the submissive Senator Graham. This criticism should be extended to every member of Congress or the Senate, in either party, who fails to represent the people they have been elected to represent, and who fails to faithfully discharge the duties of their office.

Representative democracy only works when the representatives represent. It does not work, when they decide to make up their own rules.