Lame Duck Hypocrisy

Let’s make this short and to the point.

The current imbroglio over the Supreme Court is a perfect illustration of political hypocrisy writ large.

On the one hand we are told by the Republican leadership that will not consider Obama’s nominee because they think that ‘the people’ ought to have a voice in who gets to fill the seat vacated by Scalia’s recent death. Their support for this position is that they think Obama is a lame duck and as such ought not make any ‘long term appointments’. This is even though he has many months left in office, and the next election is way off in November. By making this argument they are stretching the definition of lame duck into new territory simply in order to avoid the selection of another moderate voice to the Court.

Obama, of course is well within his constitutional rights to nominate someone, and if the Republicans feel as if they want to reject his nominee all they have to do is have a vote and turn him down. But, naturally, they don’t want to have a vote. Why? Because the nominee, Judge Garland is so eminently moderate and qualified that he would be impossible to refuse. They would look obscenely partisan and foolish to vote against him. So avoidance is their only resort. Yes they look childish and cartoonish, but so be it.

This line of defense – Obama is a lame duck because there’s an election this year – raises an obvious question.

Some of the Republicans involved in the obstruction are also involved in elections in the Fall. So why aren’t they also lame ducks and thus eliminated from the discussion?

In fact there are twenty-four Republican senate seats up for election this Fall. By their own standard that means the current occupants of those twenty-four seats ought simply to leave Washington and no involve themselves in the people’s business. They are lame ducks. They ought to let the people’s voice be heard. Which, according to their own new rule, means that all twenty-four ought to be silent and not vote or otherwise involve themselves in Senate business until after election time.

Now, there are also two Democratic seats open for election this Fall. Let’s apply the new definition of lame duck to them also.

Do you know what happens when we use this new Republican rule and apply it evenly rather than hypocritically? Yes! The Democrats would have a majority in the streamlined and lame duck free Senate. Let’s call it the Rump Senate. For you history buffs there was a so-called Rump Parliament in England back in the early 1600’s, so there’s precedent for all this.

The Rump Senate, now under Democratic control could then legislate anything it wanted between now and November, with the Republicans presumably happy and secure in the knowledge that all that legislation was no longer tainted by the stigma of lame duck Senators having a say when, by the new Republican lame duck rules, they ought not.

What fun!

Oh, one last thing.

Perhaps the biggest hypocrite of all is Senator Grassley, who happens to be the Republican senator from Iowa. He is up for re-election this fall and is Chairman of the very committee that is refusing to meet because of this new lame duck rule. Quite how he can be a lame duck and then deploy the lame duck argument against Obama is only known to those who understand the twisted inner workings of Camp McConnell. The stench of hypocrisy ought condemn him and quite a few of those other lame duck twenty-four to failure this Fall.

I hope it does. It would serve them right. We all deserve better government than this.