Romney Agrees to Move Ahead With Trump’s High Court Nominee (WSJ)

 

speedy action from the Congress is unheard of, but/ev'ryone is tired with a leader off his nut/so they find it easier to let him have his way/just to keep the tantrums and the awful tweets away/Romney is no diff'rent; he wants peace and quiet, too/and so he'd put the nomination of a zombie through.

*****************************************

A computer engineer's email response from Hawaii:

You probably would rather have a critique of your poetry rather than a commentary on the message.

Poem: okay

Message: That's not the reason Romney will vote to move forward, even though it's extremely hypocritical of the Republicans to do so.  Was he in a position to vote, or did he express a position when McConnel blocked Obama's choice?  I'm not sure.  If he did, then Romney is a hypocrite too.  But I don't think he voiced or voted his position.

He's still hypocritical though, I think.  He thinks it's more important to put a conservative on the court than to keep a sensible tradition.

I support the expansion of the supreme court.  I think it's outrageous that it's essentially a political body rather than something you can feel confident will be based on fairness and law.  Definitely.  Expand it to 50 judges, and have a lotto as to which 9 hear a case.  Let each state put forth 10 nominees whenever their judge dies and let the president pick from the 10.

It flabbergasts me that a higher court will overturn a careful decision of a lower court.  Seems that it should only happen if there's a mistake in the process, not a freaking difference of opinion based on personal views.  Is it law or is it not?  No, you cannot yell Fire in a crowded building unless there's a fire.  Oh yes you can, even if there's no fire if it's to get people away from voting in that black/latino neighborhood building.  That's called freedom of speech, because those people will vote for freedom of speech and we don't want them to be heard.

*******************************

And from an English professor at BYU, this email response:

Nicely done. By the way, I haven’t read the news stories about Romney’s capitulation—I mean, agreement to move ahead. But I’m not surprised. My prediction was that he was going to say, “The Constitution clearly indicates that it is the President’s right and responsibility to submit a nomination and the Senate’s duty to consider it and consent or not consent. The Senate should have fulfilled its responsibility in 2016 when they refused even to consider President Obama’s nomination for the Supreme Court. But that failure does not mean we should fail again in our responsibility this year. And so I believe we should move ahead . . . . etc.”

 

I’ll be interested to see how closely my prediction matches what Romney has actually said.