Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy

 Filling the Supreme Court Vacancy - January 22, 2017

Dear Mr. President, Mr. Vice President and Select Senators (Judiciary Committee and Others);

This is my second letter the the President and various members of Congress, since the new administration has taken office.  The purpose of this letter is to outline three points regarding the upcoming and inevitable nomination and appointment of the next member of the Supreme Court.  The three points are (1) the requirement that this appointee MUST be a moderate choice (2) a clear definition of what a moderate choice entails and (3) my advice to Democratic Senators and any  Republicans who value the Constitution and Democracy over re-election on what to do about the travesty of leaving this position open for so long.

Regardless of how one may wish to spin the recent Presidential Election results, the facts are that the incoming President had an electoral vote count that was on the low side of average, did not win the total popular vote and I believe that we can all agree that the election was very contentious.  It is also a fact that there was and has never been significant voter fraud in any national election in our history, so please don't walk that path.  This election cycle has resulted in anger and disenfranchisement of a large portion of the American populace, as noted in protests, calls for action, a poor turn out at the Inauguration and low approval ratings for both the executive and legislative branches.  Cynics often say that the real job of a national politician is to work on his or her reelection and not to do the work of the people.  For the purposes of this argument, I will refuse to be cynical.  In addition The New President specifically said in his inaugural address that he would "be a President for all Americans".  If we couple these indisputable facts with the astonishing reality that the Senate refused to accept or even hold hearings on a legitimate nominee to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, from the previous sitting President for over 10 months, then you MUST  act in moderation out of a sense of propriety, duty and the will of the American People.


So, what are the qualities of a moderate nominee?  A moderate nominee should be one that has shown over his or her career to clearly and consistently develop and grow and who shows a willingness to consider not only the constitutionality of an issue, but to balance the various interpretations of what is constitutionality with a consideration for societal changes, cultural and sociopolitical advances along with the general will and direction of the American Citizenry.  More than one former and current sitting justice has noted that as the nation and the world evolves and most importantly as thought evolves, so shall the proceedings of the highest court in the land.  If you need further inspiration go down the road to the Jefferson Memorial and read "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." Clearly the American populace has evolved in thought to include (by a vast majority - some data indicates upwards of 60%) the notion that a woman's right to choose is paramount over any other consideration.  A significant majority of Americans believe that marriage equality falls under the Constitutional Equal Protection Clause.  More than two-thirds of Americans believe that upholding the separation of church and state is a key element of maintaining a strong and inclusive democracy.  These specific issues, along with judicial competence, experience and thoughtfulness of both words and deeds, MUST be used as the test for any acceptable, incoming nominee for Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

On a side note to all of you, the American people are not stupid pawns.  We believe in moderate policies and inclusion.  We know that advancement and evolution toward a more perfect union requires progressive thinking.  We clearly (with laser like precision) identify the hypocrisy of those who on one hand would wrap themselves in the cloak of "pro life" or believe that a fetus has rights, while at the same time promote the disgusting claims of the "birther" movement (if Mr. Obama had rights as a fetus and his mother was an American citizen, then .......) and what is more how can a "pro-life advocate" also be caught advocating for the death penalty, torture AND denying that healthcare is a basic human right?  It is an illogical and flawed path to go down and most Americans can see that clearly.

Lastly, if we wish to delay nominations or cause further disruption to the process, because The President and Republican Senators insist on only accepting nominees that pass their perverse and statistically undemocratic litmus test (i.e. politically conservative, anti-choice, anti-first amendment) I would suggest to my Democratic, Independent and Moderate Republican members of the Senate to seriously consider the following options.  (1) Delay as much as possible in hopes that unqualified nominees will either crack under pressure or obvious problems with their past rulings or other information has time to come forward to disqualify them (2) Consider impeachment hearings for Senator McConnell and all Republican members of the judiciary committee who refused to grant hearings for President Obama's nominee and ultimately did not perform their constitutional duty as both described in the Constitution and which was part of their oath of office to uphold.  This clear and obvious violation of duty should be grounds for impeachment at best or at least censure at a minimum. It is time that you and we hold our legislative bodies accountable. 

Thank you for your consideration

Sincerely;

George E. Knapp - MBA, BS Met E, Voter