Yes absolutely integrity should exist. I was stating the fact that integrity in DC politics no longer exists. It’s a travesty and will ultimately lead to destruction of our country from within.
Would be interested to constructively hear your opinion as to why Obama was not a lame duck president by 2016. I believe his track record and policies speak for themselves in terms of long term betterment or lack thereof for the country.
It comes down to semantics and procedures.
The semantics can be debated. However, lame duck is almost always used to refer to the time between an election and the swearing in of a replacement. At this point it can be said that the people have clearly bestowed their consent on anther and, if the outgoing person stood in the election, even withdrawn consent from him.
In the context McConnell is using it in, the above should apply. As an insult and judgement on Obama's effectiveness, sure go ahead and use it, but don't conflate the two.
For a democracy to work an elected individual must be assumed to have the consent of the governed until it is removed through either an election or conviction following a trial in the Senate after impeachment. There are checks and balances built into the system that prevent that consent from being used as a carte blanche.
The procedure bit comes down to a formality, however such things protect valuable precedent and allow those who disagree to work together. Something that is essential in a democratic republic.
Like I said in my first post, the Senate had the right not to confirm an Obama appointee and the ability as the Republicans held the majority. However, buy refusing to even consider the nominee on a principal based argument that at the time came down to SCOTUS justices should not be appointed in an election year McConnell set precedent. A precedent he now does not want to live with resulting in backfilling his argument.
I never voted for Obama and I'm not going to start arguing on his behalf now. Whether an individual sees his (or Trumps) presidency as a success or failure largely comes down to political affiliation. Which is why I believe adherence to formalities is important, rather than diving into largely subjective arguments, when it comes to setting precedent. Subjective arguments have their place amongst both the voters and the individual representatives, so don't take this as me throwing them out completely.
This is a short, and unsatisfactory, explanation, but this is a topic that risks getting as long winded and boring as Clausewitz' in On War. I lack the time and doubt anyone on a hunting form wants to read it anyway.
In short, I believe that both outcomes and how those outcomes are achieved matters.
