Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination; What About Garland; or, What Now?

I have been trying to decide what I think should happen regarding Trump's nominee for the vacant seat on the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch. There have been quite a few articles that have demonstrated that Mitch McConnel's assertion that a Presidential Supreme Court nominee has never been confirmed during an election year to be patently false. Like McConnel's pronouncement that he would resist Barrack Obama in 2008 in an attempt to make him a one term president, his assertion regarding Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland was equally self serving, obstructionist, and lacking in principal (except his principal of "My way or the highway".

Yet, if everyone took followed McConnel's way, there would never be workable government. His methods of obstructing everything which does not suite his purpose, or that of his party, are methods of gridlock and inaction.

But that, it seems, is what the Democratic base is calling for, and which Chuck Schumer appears intent on following. There was talk, albeit only a small amount, of bargaining with the Republicans, for a compromise to support Gorusch in exchange for a return to the 60-vote filibuster for all judicial appointments, which Harry Reid undid in 2013. But that talk was quickly silenced by Schumer's announcement of his intent to force McConnel to choose between the nuclear option (ending the 60-vote filibuster on SCOTUS nominees) or loosing Gorsusch.

First of all, I wouldn't sign any agreement with McConnel. He isn't to be trusted. When he needs to deliver something, in this case, Gorsuch, he will agree to anything then, and be happy to renege when he needs to deliver something else.

And what about obstruction?

Forget about obstruction. Here's a quote that tells me what the correct action should be on Gorsuch:

"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, or a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

No less an expert than James Madison in Federalist, No. 47, points out that the tyranny is the accumulation of all power in the hands of one group. Currently the Republicans have control of both houses, the executive, and a majority of the state houses. And I agree with Madison that it smells like tyranny.

I stand with Schumer. Filibuster and Resist!

Trump, in returning us to greatness, is killing our future

President Trump and his billionaire cabinet are turning away from clean energy, in the form of solar and wind, and returning to the old, dirty staples of oil and coal. In the meantime, China is embracing solar and wind and turning away from coal, which, besides contributing greenhouse gasses to climate change, has caused years of health damaging smog in Chinese cities. China will be investing $360 Billion over the next three years in renewable generation. America will invest how much?

Leaving aside the argument on climate change is the argument for jobs. China's investment is expected to produce 13 million jobs in the clean energy sector. How many jobs will be created by America turning back to coal? And keep in mind that most energy sector analysts believe that jobs in coal will not materialize because of the fall in the price of natural gas and the conversion of many old coal fired power plants to natural gas.

Let's assume that President Trump is pushing coal simply because he want to produce jobs for those coal miners and producers who have been put out of work by the moves away from coal, and not because he is pandering to the millionaire coal mine owners that want to extract more money from their past investments. Let's view it strictly as a job works issue.

America lags behind every other industrial country in providing resources to retrain and support workers hurt by economic changes, whatever their causes. Globalization has been of major benefit to Americans, in terms of product costs and trade. Globalization has impacted workers, but those workers have been further damaged by an absence of retraining programs or assistance to move to locations where jobs are available. This has been compounded by societal changes that have seen American workers less willing to change locations. In the 1930's to 1950's, during the Great Depression and World War II and Cold War, Americans were on the move, changing location to match the economy. Americans seem less likely, or less able, to travel to find new jobs.

In the area of energy generation, the rest of the world has recognized the need to change the sources of energy from fossil fuels to renewables. Even if you are less than 100% sure that coal and oil cause global warming, there is the fact that fossil fuels will someday run out. Renewables will not. Peak oil may be 20 years from now, 200 years from now, or already past. Regardless, wind and solar are forever. That alone should be a reason to continue the conversion from fossil fuels to renewables that every country on the globe has started.

But most important is the job question. That is, supposedly, why the President is pushing coal, to put those miners back to work. Why not invest in training those workers for the jobs of the future. Only America will want to continue with those old, polluting jobs and energy sources. Why aren't we, instead, concentrating on the jobs of the future, where everyone else is going?

Well, maybe it is about rewarding his billionaire capitalist friends, not returning those coal miners to work.