One of the reasons that I have been thinking over the past couple of years that Chuck Grassley may be an order of french fries short of a happy meal is that many times over the past couple years he has made some outlandish statements in public. He was at it once again Tuesday when he issued what he must have considered to be a threat to Democrats but was actually much more than that.

“Many of those on the other side who are clamoring for rules change and almost falling over themselves to do it have never served a single day in the minority,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said Tuesday in a floor speech. “All I can say is this — be careful what you wish for.”

“So if the Democrats are bent on changing the rules, then I say go ahead,” he said. “There are a lot more Scalias and [Clarence] Thomases that we’d love to put on the bench. The nominees we’d nominate and put on the bench with 51 votes would interpret the constitution as it was written.”

What Mr. Grassley said in that statement is that if the Dems take away the Republican option to force everything to a super-majority which is nearly impossible to attain (thus the obstruction caused by the Republicans during the Obama presidency), the Republicans will let loose more stink bombs on the country just like a bunch of petulant 13 year old junior high boys.

Invoking the names of two of the worst justices who have ever sat on the bench, Grassley threatened “There are a lot more Scalias and [Clarence] Thomases.” Scalia pulls opinions out of seemingly nowhere, making it up as he goes. He is overtly anti-gay and thus almost always a solid “NO” on any case that might advance minority rights. Clarence Thomas votes however Scalia does. In addition, he seems to think court sessions are good places for long rests. He seems to be limited to a few words a decade and even those may be garbled. But Thomas’s wife is seldom quiet. Many times her well paid political activity has come at a time when her husband is judging a case on issues she’s involved in as a partisan. Neither sees a problem with that.

I could go on, but the point is that while Chuck must have thought he was scaring Democrats into backing off from the so-called nuclear option, he was actually admitting that Scalia and Thomas were really bad, else such a statement would prevent no threat. Thus threatening to use great responsibilities, such as approving people who will have great unchecked power in our government, as judiciously as the 13 year old boy who let’s off the stink bomb on the junior high playground.

Funny no one has stepped up to defend Thomas and Scalia as the not deserving of their new status as examples of just how bad the GOP can be. If I were Scalia or Thomas I would think I would be outraged at having been inferred to be really lousy choices. But no one has stepped up to say Scalia and Thomas are good judges not even themselves. So I guess they agree with apparently nearly everyone else. I know for sure this is one time I agree with Chuck. Thomas, Scalia equal stink bombs.

Thomas and Scalia are two great examples of just how irresponsible and juvenile Republicans can be when using their awesome power of approving appointments. Thank you for pointing this out, Chuck. BTW – where in the Constitution does it say the Senate has a filibuster? Or that to move legislation or approve nominees to anything needs a super majority. No, I do not believe that Republicans are anywhere near the arbiters of the original meaning of the Constitution Grassley thinks they are.

I can hardly wait to vote for whoever runs against him. Time for him to stay home and just use one mower at a time.