March 19, 2016 --

Supreme Court Nominations and the Sorry State of Politics, Today . . .

The United States Constitution does not require that the United States Senate consent to the nomination of a Supreme Court justice. That said, all it will take for Sen. Mitch McConnell to agree to President Obama’s appointee is for the Democrats to say that Republican opposition to the president’s choice will shutdown the government.

Bias at The New York Times . . .

The malicious Maureen Down, in her March 6 Times column asserted – with reference to Donald Trump: “Real estate developers are con men by nature, trying to get what they want at the lowest price and sell it at the highest price, overpromising how great it’s going to be.” This is a biased statement. Had it been directed at Democrat politicians, it would have been fair comment.

A Question for the Next Nominee to the Supreme Court . . .

Does the president have authority, under our Constitution, to make substantive changes in federal laws by executive order once he or she gets tired of waiting for Congress to act? (LPR submits that an affirmative response should disqualify said the nominee.)

March 5, 2016 --

With reference to Hillary Clinton . . .

...is it not possible that she, too, would prefer that President Obama not name a Supreme Court Justice to succeed the late Antonin Scalia -- or, at the very least, would like veto power on Obama's choice?

There the Republican Establishment Goes Again . . .

A caller to the overnight Red Eye Radio program remarked of criticism from Mitt Romney about Donald J. Trump that finally Romney is criticizing a presidential candidate. The caller was a bit off the mark. Romney, like all members of the GOP establishment is quite willing to criticize presidential candidates -- so long as the are Republicans. LPR finds it fascinating that Democrats never seem to get demonized. Might have something to do with the leftist leaning of the media, n'est-ce pas?

BTW . . .

Although it is okay, apparently, to refer to Trump as "The Donald," would it be deemed sexist to refer to Clinton as "The Hillary"?