I don’t think either is very good measure of patriotism…or lack of it.
Kaepernick isn’t required to stand during the anthem. Unless there’s some clause in his contract or something, no duty is involved.
The Senate isn’t required to act on Obama’s nomination to fill Scalia’s seat. No duty to act, hold hearings and vote, is included in the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. The Senate itself governs how and when it tenders its advice and consent.
In fact, both parties can claim their actions are patriotic, being undertaken to support the country against perceived enemies and detractors. Patriotism being the utterly pliable thing that it is.
I disagree with your characterization of the Senate’s duties. Technically, no. They don’t have to act as quickly as I’d like them to do. But this particular stalling sets a precedent I’d hate to see repeated, not only for the power-grab feel of it, but also because it puts the Court in the unusual position of having too many ties. A tie simply reiterates a lower court’s decision. As most of their cases come from a lower court, what’s the point of a Supreme Court?
Legislative obstructionism is nasty business. It’s also business as usual in Congress. Has been since long before Scalia kicked the bucket.
Ties due to Senate obstructionism do not necessarily defeat the purpose of The Supreme Court. Just delays it. No lower court ruling remaining in effect due to a tie is barred from further appeal once the High Court is back at full strength.
Besides, hasn’t the results of ties favored Liberal factions more than Conservative? North Carolina’s racist voter ID law? Wasn’t it a tie that quelled the challenge to Connecticut’s gun control laws? (I haven’t kept a tally.)
I think the Republicans will regret not approving Garland. Like Scalia, he’s nobody’s puppet.
Too bad it look’s like he’s out of contention regardless of who wins the election.
But has there ever been such a loooong break from a nine-member Court? That’s what makes me nervous. How long do we have to wait to get the full team? And how many lower court decisions will be revisited once we DO have a full team? My guess is not many.
Revisiting will depend on the appellants. And the vacancy will have to wait until after the elections. And then we may have to wait some more. I’m all for obstruction if the Senate takes any on Trump’s list seriously.
They really should have gone with Garland. It was a gift from Obama.
Dating Jesus 
I don’t think either is very good measure of patriotism…or lack of it.
Kaepernick isn’t required to stand during the anthem. Unless there’s some clause in his contract or something, no duty is involved.
The Senate isn’t required to act on Obama’s nomination to fill Scalia’s seat. No duty to act, hold hearings and vote, is included in the appointments clause of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. The Senate itself governs how and when it tenders its advice and consent.
In fact, both parties can claim their actions are patriotic, being undertaken to support the country against perceived enemies and detractors. Patriotism being the utterly pliable thing that it is.
I disagree with your characterization of the Senate’s duties. Technically, no. They don’t have to act as quickly as I’d like them to do. But this particular stalling sets a precedent I’d hate to see repeated, not only for the power-grab feel of it, but also because it puts the Court in the unusual position of having too many ties. A tie simply reiterates a lower court’s decision. As most of their cases come from a lower court, what’s the point of a Supreme Court?
Legislative obstructionism is nasty business. It’s also business as usual in Congress. Has been since long before Scalia kicked the bucket.
Ties due to Senate obstructionism do not necessarily defeat the purpose of The Supreme Court. Just delays it. No lower court ruling remaining in effect due to a tie is barred from further appeal once the High Court is back at full strength.
Besides, hasn’t the results of ties favored Liberal factions more than Conservative? North Carolina’s racist voter ID law? Wasn’t it a tie that quelled the challenge to Connecticut’s gun control laws? (I haven’t kept a tally.)
I think the Republicans will regret not approving Garland. Like Scalia, he’s nobody’s puppet.
Too bad it look’s like he’s out of contention regardless of who wins the election.
But has there ever been such a loooong break from a nine-member Court? That’s what makes me nervous. How long do we have to wait to get the full team? And how many lower court decisions will be revisited once we DO have a full team? My guess is not many.
Revisiting will depend on the appellants. And the vacancy will have to wait until after the elections. And then we may have to wait some more. I’m all for obstruction if the Senate takes any on Trump’s list seriously.
They really should have gone with Garland. It was a gift from Obama.