Dick Burr's Rationalization

Article II, Section II, of the U.S. Constitution: "The President .... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court...."

Okay, I deliberately left out the next clause of that sentence, which says in Olde English (hard to accurately transcribe, except for Republicans), "except when the President is a black man or a Democrat, or both."

Amazing how those Republicans, who just love the Constitution to pieces, find rationalizations for ignoring its clear mandates.

Sen. Dick Burr said, “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

Let's annotate that excuse: "The American people, who had their say in 2008 by electing Barack Obama, and again in 2012, by reelecting Barack Obama, will probably and overwhelmingly agree with Republican obstructionists that the last 11 months of said Obama's term in office should be spent ruing the day he was ever elected in the first place and thanking the Lily White God Above that a white conservative could be elected next November, who'll do the Right Thing!"

Of course, Burr said that because his Republican brethren in the U.S. Senate had formed a chorus already, and of course he said it because he's got Greg Brannon challenging him on the right in the primary, and Burr thought he'd better join the chorus. To his detriment.

The Republican Party, and especially Republican senators up for reelection, are adding more packed baggage to their already weighted-down War Wagon, none of which particularly appeals to independent and swing voters.

West Virginia Saved from "Scalia Justice"

An important decision regarding the buying of judges was handed down yesterday by the U.S. Supremes in a 5-4 decision. Because the case involved the influence of Big Coal in the state of West Virginia, I've been following it for years and can only applaud the decision and note that Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito (the minority in the decision) think it's perfectly all right to buy yourself a judge, if you've got the cash, and that the bought judge is perfectly within his rights to rule in your favor when the time comes.

Here's the background: Several small mining companies sued A.T. Massey Coal Company, alleging that Massey's chief executive, Don L. Blankenship, the Boss Hogg of the West Virginia coal industry, had used fraud to drive the small companies out of business. The plaintiffs won a $50 million jury verdict in 2002, which Blankenship appealed to the state's Supreme Court, where he lost in a 3-2 decision. Whereupon Blankenship found himself a lawyer willing to be his candidate in the next election, running against the state's Chief Justice, who cast the deciding vote against him, and spent $3 million in 2004 to defeat the Chief Justice and install his own guy, who promptly supplied the third vote in reversing the previous decision. Got that?

Which developments, ruled the five-judge majority on the U.S. Supremes yesterday, violate the Constitution's due-process clause. They've sent the case back to the West Virginia Supreme Court and ordered the Blankenship-bought chief justice to recuse himself from any further involvement.

Judge Scalia, who himself knows a thing or two about buddying up with Dick Cheney and then ruling in his favor, was particularly outraged that the majority on the court thinks it can "right all wrongs and repair all imperfections through the Constitution." That's the guy who helped appoint our president in 2000.