I have never claimed that my scribblings are “fair and balanced.” I give a pronounced progressive spin to national politics. I might criticize, but I try, I really do try, to avoid being vicious. After all, I have friends with opposing political views whom I respect, and whom I hope to count as friends for whatever future time I have left to me.

But at the moment, I’m ticked off. I ask for forgiveness in advance should forgiveness be required, because this is going to be a bumpy ride.

Now that the Trump campaign appears to be going down by the bow, and the band on the fantail is playing “Nearer, My God, to Thee,” the Grand Old Party is scampering to the lifeboats trying to save whatever it can from this self-inflicted debacle.

The latest appeal to voters, while never admitting that The Donald is about to go down with the ship (and take the GOP with him), encourages the electorate   to vote for Republican Senate candidates so that the Senate majority does not pass to the evil Democrats. This is necessary, we are told, to provide a “check and balance” to a Clinton Administration.

Give me a break!

If you’ve compared Senate candidates and have a preference, by all means, vote your conscience, but don’t vote just to maintain a so-called “check and balance” because on several levels that reason is so much bull hockey.

For starters, Congress is made up of two chambers, the Senate – and the House. For any legislation to advance to the executive branch, both chambers have to be in total agreement as to the content of the bill, or bills.

Most House districts are gerrymandered to favor one party or the other. Since a majority of state legislatures are firmly in Republican control (as in Indiana), and since legislatures draw congressional district lines, a significant majority of House seats are all but guaranteed to be held by Republicans. If George Washington himself came back from the dead to do public service announcements urging the election of Democrats, his appeal would probably make no difference in those Republican bastions.

Bottom line, in the absence of a Texas-sized miracle, the House will remain in Republican control after November 8, and will, of itself alone, act as a “check and balance” to any alleged shenanigans emanating from the executive mansion.

But hold on, the Republican Senate Campaign Committee might bleat, there is more at stake than legislation. There is the “Advice and Consent” function of the Senate when it comes to presidential appointments, including appointments to the federal courts – from the Supreme Court on down.

No (expletive deleted), Sherlock. Now we come to the heart of the matter.

Control of the Senate means control over judicial nominations.

If the GOP leadership could be trusted to subordinate their ideological agenda to their constitutional duty, it would be one thing, but such has not been the case. There has been a Supreme Court nomination languishing since last March. The Senate has a constitutional duty to give its advice and consent on this nomination and the Republican leadership has refused to even give the nomination a hearing, much less a vote. Although he is currently trying to walk it back, Senator John McCain has said he should be re-elected so he can help block Hillary Clinton’s Supreme Court appointments.

If Democrats pulled the same tactic, Republican howls would be heard from as far away as Trump Tower.

As Republicans are wont to say when successful, “elections have consequences.” Should Hillary Clinton become our 45^th president, that election will have consequences as well. It is not the purpose of the “Advice and Consent” function to deny the executive his (or her!) choice merely because of ideological differences. It was designed to prevent the appointment of incompetents. One is not rendered incompetent by virtue of having a judicial philosophy that differs from that of the majority party in the Senate.

Clinton appointees are likely to be more liberal than those offered by prior Republican administrations. In many cases, today’s conservative justices replaced more liberal predecessors. There is nothing that says the Supreme Court is the exclusive reserve of either liberals or conservatives. There should be no conservative law, nor liberal law. There should be the law. Whatever ideological filters are used (and everyone has them), the outcome should be reflective of the “letter and spirit” of the Constitution – at least that’s what Chief Justice John Marshal, the fourth chief justice of the United States and principal founder of the U.S. system of constitutional law, wrote almost 200 years ago. Both liberals and conservatives are capable of making that determination. If they work together collegially rather than adversarially, they might even be able to avoid patently political decisions that serve to undermine confidence in the courts, and in the legal system generally.

If elections have consequences, so do nominations. Donald Trump is a reflection of current thought within the Republican party – perhaps not that of a majority, but at least enough of a minority to have successfully seized the nomination. Most of the Republican political class jumped on board.

Unfortunately, they have discovered that Donald Trump is Donald Trump. If The Donald were being more successful, however, does anyone seriously think the folks who call for a continued GOP Senate majority to maintain a “check and balance” on the executive would argue Democrats should likewise be allowed a Senate majority to provide that same “check and balance” on a President Trump?

Somehow I seriously doubt it.