Trump Makes Campaign Stop At Cleveland Charter School

Republican Presidential Candidate Donald Trump made yet another campaign stop in Ohio yesterday. In the days since the Republican convention in Cleveland back in July, Trump has made multiple visits to Ohio with a majority of them being northeast Ohio. Since northeast Ohio has both a sizable population base as well as containing several counties that broke for Trump during the primary this makes good campaign sense.

This time Trump’s stop was at a Cleveland charter school. The school was the Cleveland Arts and Social Sciences Academy, a predominantly African-American school on Cleveland’s east side. Trump used this stop to stump for school choice, including a program to award grants for low-income children to pursue their choice in education.

This stop occurred during a time of bad press for charter schools in Ohio. The infrastructure and rules for charter schools in Ohio is still going through growing pains; a few schools have been in recent news for attendance problems and poor audits. These have only been further exacerbated by attacks from state democrats and teachers unions who see charter schools and other methods of school choice as threats to their traditionally comfortable hold on educators and their union dues.

However, schools like the Arts and Social Science show that charter schools can and most often do work in the state. This Cleveland school offers a valuable service and choice to many students who have been otherwise failed by the traditional public schools in the state. By offering additional choices, especially in a metro area like Cleveland, parents and students can choose the best model of education for their family.

It was refreshing to see Donald Trump take a positive view on school choice and to offer policy solutions that benefit families. Trump has embraced full school choice, which includes charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling. In comparison, Democratic Candidate Hillary Clinton has given lip service support to public charter schools as recently as July 2016, but has made it clear she does not favor full school choice by opposing private schools. Clinton should embrace the view that Trump has taken; that of school choice as an “all of the above” for multiple options.

Why Is Sherrie Miday’s Campaign Misrepresenting Her As A Judge?

Judges are supposed be ethical. They should be beyond reproach and fair -and they absolutely have to be honest. They certainly shouldn’t misrepresent themselves. The same is expected of judicial candidates.

But, that can’t be said of Sherrie Miday, who is running for Cuyahoga Common Pleas Judge again after spending over $400,000 on her failed 2014 judicial campaign. She wants to be a judge badly, so badly that her campaign will lie about her resume. At a recent parade, someone with Miday’s campaign was calling her a judge – and Sherrie didn’t correct her.

It says quite a lot about Sherrie Miday’s character when she is allowing herself to be misrepresented as a judge when she is not. Honesty is an important part of being a judge. These two videos show that Sherrie has some trouble with the truth.

Pamela Ballard even tagged Sherrie Miday on Facebook as being a judge. Miday didn’t remove the tag or even correct Ballard for falsifying Miday’s resume.

midaylie midaylies

Wouldn’t someone who was ethical and honest remove the tag and comment that she isn’t a judge? Well, Sherrie didn’t. She should have read and be following the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct. She seems to have some challenges following a certain portion of it:

Rule 4.3 Campaign standards and communications
During the course of any campaign for nomination or election to judicial office, a judicial candidate, by means of campaign materials, including sample ballots, advertisements on radio or television or in a newspaper or periodical, electronic communications, a public speech, press release, or otherwise, shall not knowingly or with reckless disregard do any of the following:(A) Post, publish, broadcast, transmit, circulate, or distribute information concerning the judicial candidate or an opponent, either knowing the information to be false or with a reckless disregard of whether or not it was false or, if true, that would be deceiving or misleading to a reasonable person;

(C) Use the title of a public office or position immediately preceding or following the name of the judicial candidate, when the judicial candidate does not hold that office or position;
(D) Use the term “judge” when the judicial candidate is not a judge unless that term appears after or below the name of the judicial candidate and is accompanied by either or both of the following:(1) The words “elect” or “vote,” in prominent lettering, before the judicial candidate’s name;
(2) The word “for,” in prominent lettering, between the name of the judicial candidate and the term “judge;”

Sherrie Miday is tied into the old Bill Mason machine of the Cuyahoga Democratic Party. She ran her 2014 campaign in a manner that was reminiscent of the old machine that crumbled when so many were hauled off to prison.

After the likes of Bridget McCafferty and Steven Terry, Cuyahoga can’t afford to have another judge with some ethical concerns. Miday’s silence is deafening. People along that parade route likely accepted the lie that she already is a judge. And with it being posted on Facebook, that lie had even farther reach.

Yet, Miday just accepted the lie. Is this what you want in a judge?

Trump Gets Hero’s Welcome While Biden Gets Ignored: Ohio’s Mahoning Valley

For northeast Ohio and for the Youngstown area in particular Labor day holds a special place: it is the time of the Canfield Fair. The Canfield Fair is the largest county fair in the state of Ohio and 3rd largest in the country. Every election year you can bet that at least a few candidates will make a stop at the fair: the venue is just too promising to pass up. This year the fair was lucky enough to host two different politicians: Vice President Joe Biden and Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump.

Their visits could not have been more different.

Before we jump into the stark difference of these two visits it’s important to recognize the political climate of the area. The Canfield Fair is located in Mahoning County, one of the most heavily democratic areas in the state of Ohio. However, Mahoning County had the notoriety during this recent primary season of seeing over 6,000 Democrats cross over to take Republican ballots, most likely to vote for Trump as he won the county handily (although Trump lost the state overall to Governor John Kasich). Now the number of registered Democrats to registered Republicans is almost equal in the county. It’s safe to say that Trump has a base of support in Mahoning County that Republicans traditionally do not enjoy.

The fair this weekend was a great example.

Joe Biden visited the Canfield Fair on Thursday, the second day of the fair. Vice President Biden first arrived in the Mahoning Valley to a only half-full UAW Union Hall. Let’s repeat this: in the Democrat stronghold of the Mahoning Valley, in a UAW Hall not far from the GM Lordstown plant, the Vice President of the United States could not fill a space campaigning for Hillary Clinton. After the travesty of a first stop Biden then stopped by the Canfield Fairground at the local Democrat Party tent to another modest crowd. Biden was driven up to the tent in his limo, jumped out for some photos and then headed out.

I believe Mr. Trump would call this very low energy.

 

Compared to Donald Trump’s visit to the fair on Labor Day, traditionally the final day of the Canfield Fair, Biden’s visit barely counted as a rest stop. As soon as the rumors circulated about  Trumps visit as early as Friday, people were clambering into the Republican tent for more information. The local Republican Party did all they could to supply demand for Trump; they were constantly restocking on shirts, buttons, yard signs, and other Trump memorabilia. The local party even took it a step further: they started building a “Trump Wall” fundraiser for which  you could buy a brick, write a message, and place it on the wall for a small donation. The wall was a hit; the party built three different walls displays as the demand for bricks was so high.

One of the “Trump Walls” at the Canfield Fair on Thursday was already completed.

14202478_10101562189971062_7484769486444143565_n

 

Then came Trump’s visit to the fair on Monday afternoon, Labor day. People stood outside the Republican tent waiting to see the candidate. The crowd started gathering at 10 am, and Donald Trump did not even arrive to the fair until a few minutes after 3 pm. Thousands were crowding outside the tent, holding signs, wearing Trump campaign gear, and occasionally joining in with calls of “build the wall” and “lock her up!”. The video below shows the crowd at around 1 pm (two hours before Trump even arrived): the front of the Republican tent is nearly impassable due to the size of the crowd gathered.

Crowd waiting for Trump 2 hours before he arrives.

https://www.facebook.com/jwshaw/videos/10101563271778112/

 

Let’s do a recap of this Labor Day Weekend: Presidential candidate Donald Trump totally upstaged the sitting Vice President of the United States in a part of the country that has been a Democrat Stronghold for decades. It is no wonder that recent polling is showing this race so close.

School Choice Leads To Overall Education Improvement

The issue of school choice has been a hot button issue here in Ohio, especially since the expansion and changes of community (charter) schools in recent years. To be clear school choice is not simply charter schools: the idea of choice for youngsters’ education also encompasses home schooling and private schools. However, while home schooling and private schools have been around for a long time, the idea of a public charter school is still a new concept for most. Even using the phrase “public charter school” is a misnomer since in Ohio all charter schools ARE public schools, but many are still not aware of this fact. Regardless, the steps that the state has taken to increase school choice for students by expanding charter schools are great, even taking into account the need for some fine tuning in practices that is being shown by the state auditor’s office.

 

Expanding school choice can be simply looked at as expanding the marketplace in education. By expanding the marketplace the state is creating an environment where different approaches can be taken to education, where hopefully new best practices and methods can be explored. This expanded marketplace now contains competition: are you going to send you child to a traditional public school, a new charter school, the catholic school down the road, or maybe even home school them yourselves? You are going to pick what you think is the best option for your child and your family.

 

This expanded marketplace, with its competition for students will (and in many cases already has) lead to innovations. These innovations will lead to a better education for our children and their children. I recently visited a few charter schools in Denver, where different approaches to education were taken. These schools were also interesting because they not only served more low-income and minority students than the average Denver public schools, but they also were scoring higher on achievement tests on average than traditional public schools. It was a fantastic show of how charter schools can add to the educational experience by offering students a different choice from traditional public schools.

 

School choice, when done correctly can lead to great innovations in education as well as give students and families the choice of environments in which to learn. Of course there will be bumps in the road as can be seen in a few schools in Ohio today. However, the proof can be seen in other states such as Colorado that charter schools can improve the educational experience and academic results.

 

Conservative Media’s Lack of Diversity Contributed to the Rise of Trump

367F7A4000000578-0-image-a-8_1469180571446There have been many articles written by journalists and columnists about the issues surrounding the conservative media. With the rise of Donald Trump being aided and abetted by many in the conservative media, serious journalists and commentators are asking “how did this happen?”

John Zeigler and others have given us tremendous insight into the reasons why so many who claim to be true believers in conservatism sold out to someone who is not conservative. However I believe that there is another point that needs to be addressed. The alarming lack of racial and ethnic diversity in the audience of conservative media is one of the main contributors to the rise of Trump.

Those of us in the media understand that we have a responsibility to our audience. That is, after all, how we make money. Businesses, organizations and political candidates pay us for access to our audience. No audience, no money. So it is important to understand who your audience is and to cater to them in order to attract businesses that want to speak to that audience.

Too often, that does not include people of color. The audience of Fox News, conservative talk radio and most conservative media outlets is overwhelmingly white. Why does that matter? Because if your audience is even somewhat diverse, the cost-benefit analysis of going all in on someone like Donald Trump changes. Do we really think that Laura Ingraham would be worshipping at the altar of Trump if even 15 or 20 percent of her audience was Hispanic? Would the multitude of conservative news outlets that essentially serve as Trump’s Pravda be comfortable in that role if they knew that they could lose part of their audience? Conservative Media suffers the same demographic pitfalls as the Republican Party as a whole: its adherents are too old and too white.

Outlets and personalities do not even have to consider the sensibilities of a young or racially diverse audience because they are not in the fanbase. They rarely hear from non-activist members of those minority groups and as a result there is no cost to elevating a man that habitually says racist, sexist and xenophobic things. There is no threat of a listener backlash or protest (other than from committed liberals, who are agenda driven anyway). Unless white conservatives themselves revolt against Trump’s media sycophants, they will be free to do whatever they want without any fear of financial or audience repercussions. This development has contributed to the intellectual and ideological ghetto that these outlets and personalities have placed themselves in.

If we understand, then, that the conservative media is too racially and demographically homogenous, the natural next question is: what can be done about it? I believe there is nothing that one can do to diversify the audience of the current crop of super famous conservatives. They will live on their financial models until it falls apart (which may be coming sooner than they think). It is going to take new outlets, personalities and the development of a conservative media counter-culture, one that can still be right leaning, but with a different cost benefit analysis. A new conservative media culture that does not cater to demagogues and thinly veiled white supremacists is the only thing that can bring in new people.

Had the conservative media audience (and GOP primary voters) been more diverse, the rise of Donald Trump would have never happened in the first place. Imagine conservative talk show hosts or media outlets with even 20 percent of their audience being nonwhite. Now imagine how they would respond to a character like Trump. Would some risk alienating that 20 percent for the 80 percent who may like him? Sure, but many wouldn’t. An outlet with a diverse audience is also more likely to attract white people with different sensibilities, people who would be offended by Trump’s rhetoric and actions.

The conservative media runs the Republican Party in a way that we’ve never seen in American politics. If you’re concerned about the electoral futures of the GOP, job number one should be fixing and diversifying the media that controls it.

Darvio Morrow is the CEO of FCB Entertainment and co-host of The Outlaws Radio Show on iHeartRadio.

Why Isn’t Strickland Asked About $400 Million Iran Payoff? What (D)ifference Does It Make?

The media bias has been pretty remarkable this week, but it’s particularly obvious today.

News broke this week that the Obama Administration sent $400 million in foreign currency on an unmarked plane to Iran as they were releasing our hostages. This happened in January. And when President Obama announced the release of the prisoners, he didn’t mention anything about $400 million dollars.

It was a fly by night operation – literally. Not exactly something you would expect from someone who promised “the most transparent” administration in US History. Sending the better part of a billion dollars to an enemy is something that certainly demands transparency.

White House Press Secretary was asked about this very suspicious transaction that smells of a ransom payoff today. Given Iran’s funding of Hezbollah, he conceded that some of that Obama money may have ended up in the terrorist organization’s pockets.

“The president was quite forward-leaning in advance of the nuclear deal even being completed in acknowledging that we know that Iran supports terrorism,” Earnest said. “We know that Iran supports Hezbollah and the Assad regime, and it is certainly possible that some of the money that Iran has is being used for those purposes, too.”

Even the White House acknowledged that this money may have been redirected to Iran. This is terrifying and appalling.

While the press has been questioning the White House, where are the questions for elected officials and candidates who supported the Iran Deal? If a Republican was president, every Republican Senator and Congressman would be asked to weigh in on this. But, we don’t see that same accountability from the press with Democrats.

US Senate candidate and failed former governor Ted Strickland supported the Iran Deal. How does he feel about this $400 million and US taxpayers possibly funding Hezbollah? Does he think it’s shady to make this covert payoff and hide it for months? What about Sherrod Brown? He gave two big thumbs up to the deal?

Why aren’t their feet being held to the fire on these questions? Why is every Republican asked about Donald Trump, but the press doesn’t ask every Democrat about Hillary Clinton’s repeated lies and corruption? Why is he a source of angst to all Republicans but she isn’t to Democrats?

What (D)ifference does it make?

 

The Left Hates Your Rights

The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of American Democracy. Unlike most other Western Democracies, the Bill of Rights is not a document granting rights to citizens from the government, but instead stating the already existing rights of citizens before government. As the progressive-left in the United States loves big-brother style of government, it should be no surprise that they are continuing to show their utter disdain for the Constitution, with the Bill of Rights at forefront of their hissy-fits. Instead of speaking in generalities, it instead seemed more useful to go through the applicable amendments and discuss how the left has shown hate for that particular right in recent years, since they seem determined to undermine as many as they possibly can.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


This is most easily seen on the college campuses. Whether it is free-speech hating safe spaces, or persecuting students for supporting Donald Trump with campus wall demonstrations, the left continues to show their support of censorship. Of course they will say that they love free speech, but what that really means is free speech that they agree with. College campuses used to be an environment of learning, of being confronted with ideas that are new or the opposite of what you believe. By being exposed to other viewpoints you could grow, either more soundly into your own beliefs, or into new beliefs that you have been shown. Instead campuses have become an oppressive echo chamber for the left.

Sadly this is all happening not just on college campuses, but out in the real world as well. If you happen to be on the wrong side of the issue many leftists will shout you down, try to put you in the corner, or attack you when you are coming out of a Donald Trump rally. The media has been complicit here as well: instead of reporting on those wishing to silence their political opponents they have instead glorified the criminals involved. The irony here is that progressivism would have never grew without protection from the 1st amendment.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The left has hated the 2nd amendment for the last several decades. When the left gets what they claim they “want” they then move the goalposts. First we “needed” a ban on Assault Rifles. Then we “needed” a ban on “Assault Weapons”, an invented term that has no recognized meaning with the ATF. Thankfully we had a sensible congress that let the latter expire. Unfortunately we are currently fighting a battle on aesthetics: the progressive-left is fighting to ban AR-15s, a particular firearm who’s only crime is superficially resembling a military M-16/4. What many do not realize is that a ban on the AR-15 would absolutely lead to a ban on all semi-automatic weapons, most of which are commonly used as hunting weapons as well as defense weapons.

The most important fact, ignoring that owning firearms is a constitutional right, is that the firearm homicide rate is about half of what it was 20 years ago. This does not fit the narrative, so it is easily thrown aside. When the nation experiences a terrorist act, the left has at every opportunity pushed for more gun control, instead of actually addressing the root of the terrorism.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


This has been shown in connection with the left’s hatred of the 2nd. Recently, we have had Democratic Representatives occupy the House floor during recess because a bill they supported did not succeed. What they leave out of this narrative, however, is that this bill would have stripped due process away from anyone unfortunate enough to end up on the no-fly list. The same list that Senator Ted Kennedy, Actor David Nelson, and Representative Don Young have had the misfortune of appearing on by mistake.

Democrats in the House were offered a compromise bill that had a similar effect but allowed for due process hearings for those who contend they are on the list by mistake. House Democrats instead decided to sit on the House floor like children. They has also used this stunt for fundraising purposes with the DNC. The left frequently accuses the right of being obstructionists, but here they have shown that they only care about pandering and fundraising.

 

So please, next time you seen your Democratic Representative thank them for their hard work in taking away the rights that were so carefully named to you in our founding document.

 

 

Congress Needs To Continue Protecting Medicare Part D

 

Generally government intervention into the market results in higher costs to the consumer. Most recently this can be seen in various sections of Obamacare: new rules and taxes have increased premiums for many people. A few weeks ago I wrote about the HIT tax and its negative impact on the healthcare market. This is due to its nature of picking winners and losers in that particular market.

However, this does not mean that every foray the federal government has taken into healthcare is negative. A successful program that has been operating for some time, Medicare Part D, is an example of how a program run by the government can be successful. For those who are not very familiar with Medicare Part D, it is a prescription drug benefits plan that allows the free-market competition which has led to affordable prices and easy access for prescription drugs and premiums for our seniors.

Part D has been very successful for over 10 years.

Part D in a way is a stark contrast to the HIT; instead of inserting itself into the market to pick winners and losers, Part D allows the consumer the freedom to choose in the marketplace. This drives competition and allows the free market to continue to function instead of (an attempt) to control of the market by artificial government means. The choice for the government to be involved in healthcare via Medicare and Medicaid was made long ago: supporting an aspect of these programs that still allows for competition in the marketplace is commonsense.

Unsurprisingly Part D has come under negative attention from the left who want to change the fundamental aspect of why this program works so well. These are the same politicians who will not be happy until every aspect of life is controlled from Washington DC. Instead of allowing market choice to continue, some policy makers are calling for direct governmental control of Part D prescriptions. Part D is popular among seniors and has consistently comes in under budget projections. Hillary Clinton, who is more likely than not the Democratic nominee, has specifically stated her intents to change Part D into another government run, Obamacare-like failure. Thank God we have had Republicans in Congress use commonsense to protect the program from ideologically based changes proposed by the Obama Administration. So my question to both Clinton and Obama: why change a program that is obviously working?

Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama care more about liberal ideology than what is best for our seniors.

Leave it to liberal politicians to change a popular program that actually works. Meanwhile the VA is a national disgrace they would rather sweep under the rug. Hopefully our Ohio delegation will push Congress to continue to protect our seniors by ensuring that Medicare Part D does not become another over budget, government controlled healthcare nightmare.

It’s Time To Stop Obamacare’s HIT Tax

Even though the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has been in effect for some time, both the intended and unintended consequences of the law continue to negatively impact consumers. The sheer number of taxes added by the law is rather staggering: from the Individual Mandate, the Surtax on Investment Income, and the Health Insurance Tax Excise (HIT), the law was itself half tax increases by design. The backers of the bill missed the irony of “The Affordable Care Act”; making healthcare more costly to over half of the country due to its overabundance of tax increases.

Back in December of 2015, Congress passed a temporary one-year hold on the Health Insurance Excise Tax (HIT). The HIT is a tax on health insurance companies based on its share of the insured marketplace – but exempts the large employer and corporations that are self-insured.  Economists predict that this cost will be passed directly on to small businesses in the form of higher premiums.  When Obamacare was getting shoved through congress (“but we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”) the law was hailed as aimed at increasing the pool of covered people. By enacting a tax such as the HIT, Obamacare is essentially pressuring both providers and companies that offer insurance to their employees to eliminate certain plans simply because they cover too much.

Just as is the case with other liberal economic policies, the HIT picks winners and losers. By its design the winners are health insurance plans with just the “right” amount of coverage, as well as high-cost plans by large corporations that are in the self-insured market that are exempt from the tax. Because of this the HIT unfairly affects small businesses and individuals whose only mistake was choosing a more comprehensive plan for their own comfort.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has estimated the HITx would cost small business owners an additional $530 per employee per year. Much of this cost will be passed on to employees in higher premium costs. Wages are stagnant, healthcare costs have already increased, and the HIT would be responsible for yet another increase in healthcare premiums.

As if those reasons weren’t enough, another group has weighed in with a final, highly impactful repercussion from the HIT. The National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB) has estimated that job growth will be stunted if the tax is implemented. The NFIB has estimated that private sector job growth will be reduced by 125,000 simply from the implementation of the HIT.

Let’s recap the Health Insurance Tax:

  1. It unfairly affects small businesses and individuals over large corporations
  2. It picks winners and losers in insurance plans by arbitrary ideal coverage
  3. It will cost small businesses millions of dollars each year
  4. It will cost families about $500 more per year in higher premiums
  5. It will negatively impact economic growth to the tune of 125,000 jobs lost.

 

The HIT costs employees, employers, and jobs. Another temporary one-year hold is not enough. Congress needs to permanently stop the Health Insurance Tax. Our Ohio delegation needs to step up and drive the fight for this repeal.

Sherrod Brown and the Cincinnati Enquirer are spreading misinformation on SCOTUS nominees

sherrod-brownA guest post by Tyler Herrmann

Senator Sherrod Brown recently wrote to the Cincinnati Enquirer about the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. His letter demonstrates either a fundamental misreading of the Constitution or the purposeful distribution of misinformation – neither of which reflects well upon a U.S. Senator.

Sen. Brown likens the decision not to hold a hearing for Judge Garland to a fry-cook deciding to serve raw eggs to customers rather than the fully-cooked omelets promised on the menu. However, Sen. Brown leaves out the fact that diner cooks do not get to cook whatever kind of omelet they desire, but are given recipes which they are expected to follow. When preparing an omelet, the recipe tells a cook how many eggs to use, what other ingredients to include, and even how long it should be cooked. The Constitution provides no such recipe for the Senate to follow when it comes to considering a Supreme Court nomination.

Unfortunately, the Enquirer too is putting out misinformation on the issue. The editorial board spoke on the issue saying “the Senate is constitutionally bound to hold hearings on [President Obama’s] nominee.” I challenge the Enquirer’s editorial board to point me to the language in the Constitution mandating confirmation hearings. Of course, I’ll be waiting for a while since no such language exists.

What the Constitution does say on the issue can be found in Article II, Section 2. It states that the president “shall” nominate Supreme Court Justices, and that only with the advice and consent of the Senate shall those nominees be appointed. In fact, the only action which the Constitution requires is that the president seek the Senate’s advisement and consent. There is no language which purports to instruct the Senate as to how it must go about providing that advisement and consent (or lack thereof).

While it is true that the Senate often holds hearing as a part of this process, the Constitution most certainly does not require it. If Senate leadership decides that the best way to express their opinion is through inaction, then that is their Constitutional prerogative.

Happily, Sen. Brown, other national Democrats, and the Enquirer’s editorial board need not take my word for it – they can turn to the Supreme Court itself for clarification. The Court held in Nixon v. United States 506 U.S. 224 (1993) that the Constitution’s grant of power to the Senate to hold impeachment trials “lacks sufficient precision to afford any judicially manageable standard of review of the Senate’s actions.” In light of this lack of standards, the Court determined it was up to the Senate alone to decide how it goes about fulfilling this Constitutional duty. In this instance, the Constitution again grants the Senate sole responsibility for providing advisement and consent (or lack thereof) to the president regarding his nominations, but is silent as to process. Therefore, the Senate may, in full accordance with the Constitution, choose to express its opinion through inaction.

If Senator Brown and the Enquirer editorial board are still unconvinced, they need only look to the rest of the state for information. The Columbus dispatch said in an editorial that “the Constitution does not require the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate to hold hearings on President Barack Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.” A member of the Cleveland Plain Dealer’s editorial board states that “none of the current fulminating has anything to do with the Constitution.” Even the unabashed liberals at Plunderbund have conceded that “it’s well within the right of the Senate Majority to do this.”

Whether or not the Senate’s current course of action is the most preferable is a question that should certainly be discussed. I happen to agree with Leader McConnell, Senator Portman, and other Senate Republicans that confirmation of a new Supreme Court justice should wait until after the general election, but there is room for healthy debate on this issue and both sides have convincing arguments. There is, however, no room to simply claim that the Senate is not doing its job or that it is somehow neglecting its constitutional duty. Such claims take this argument outside the realm of what should happen and into the realm of what must happen, and the Constitution does not tell the Senate how it must proceed. The Senate may fulfill its role in any way it sees fit because, after all, there is more than one way to cook an omelet.