I
think it was in a movie that I first heard the expression 'keep your
friends close and your enemies closer'. The wisdom was clear, and I
filed it away in the grey matter beneath my hair.
This
explains why I even bothered with Senator Orrin Hatch's (R-UT) op-ed piece,
which attempts to justify congressional intransigence over
presidential Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.
It's always good to know what the enemy is thinking.
It's always good to know what the enemy is thinking.
Since
it was written in Republican, I had a difficult time making sense of
it. I held it up to
a mirror in hopes its backwards, inside-out logic would
suddenly appear well-ordered and sensible.
It
didn't.
Hatch
repeatedly makes the point that the next Supreme Court nominee must
be made by a representative of the people, and after exhaustive study
of both the 2008 and 2012 election returns, I can confirm that Barack
Obama was indeed elected by people. Specifically, Americans.
This
must be news to the addled senator from Utah, who evidently
believes Obama was elected by a mix of crustaceans, canned fruit
and small appliances.
Regrettably,
Hatch goes on.
He maintains that by naming a successor to Antonin Scalia, President Obama is
attempting to politicize the Supreme Court, thereby engaging in the
most wanton, divisive and destructive politicking ever seen on
Capitol Hill.
But
by delaying a confirmation until the next (and presumably,
Republican) president is elected, congressional Republicans are
acting in the best interests of a fair and balanced court, with no
thought whatsoever given to the well-being of their party.
(I
couldn't stop laughing, either. Am I alone in thinking that cable TV
is missing a real comedic talent here?)
In
the depths of the Great Recession, Congress debated the extension of
unemployment benefits for the tens of millions of people upended by
that financial cataclysm. Typically, Orrin Hatch opposed it, stating the unemployed would just use
the money to buy drugs.
Six
years later, the truth is obvious.
Given the complete lack of coherence in Hatch's piece (and by extension, his thinking), it is clear the reason Hatch opposed funding for the unemployed was that he feared competition for the drugs with which he is so obviously smitten.
Given the complete lack of coherence in Hatch's piece (and by extension, his thinking), it is clear the reason Hatch opposed funding for the unemployed was that he feared competition for the drugs with which he is so obviously smitten.
With
this in mind, I want to reach out to poor, addicted Orrin.
I propose the formation of a law which makes it illegal to legislate under the influence. Call it LUI. Going one step further, I'll suggest mandatory blood testing before Republican congressmen are allowed to speak, write or legislate.
I propose the formation of a law which makes it illegal to legislate under the influence. Call it LUI. Going one step further, I'll suggest mandatory blood testing before Republican congressmen are allowed to speak, write or legislate.
To honor the legacy of recently departed Republican princess Nancy Reagan, we'll
call it Just Say No. (That ought to be easy for Republicans to remember, eh?)
Not only will this heighten the level of our national discourse—it should work wonders for our politics.