With all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over those obstructionist Republicans and how they stopped the Obama agenda, particularly during the Lame Duck session, the Democrats were going to change the rules so that never happens again.
Nuclear option
We have come to expect a fight whenever a seat opens up on the Supreme Court as there are distinct battle lines between conservatives who believe the Constitution should be interpreted how it was written and liberal/progressives view it in light of what they feel it should be today. In other words, conservatives approach the Constitution with a magnifying glass while liberal/progressives approach it with an eraser and pencil.
I happen to believe that elections have consequences and that for the most part the president should be allowed to nominate who he chooses to fill a Supreme Court vacancy and have them approved. However, as Democrats like to point out when a Republican sits in the White House, the Senate has a Constitutional role to give advice and consent on such nominees, not just rubber stamp them, which is true enough. Unfortunately, today the advice and consent process is almost a sham, because the nominees have learned how to keep their mouths shut and defer from answering all but the blandest questions under the cover that it may come up before them in a case on the court. We can thank Ted Kennedy for this as he turned the advice and consent role into an opportunity to smear a nominee, Judge Robert Bork, in the most vile and mendacious way to pander to the base of the Democratic Party. Since then, it’s been lights out on any serious probing of the thought process of nominees to our highest court.
But what about Elena Kagan? After the Senate Judiciary panel approved her nomination along nearly party lines (Lindsey Graham – R voted in favor) most Americans (87%) believe she will be confirmed, according to Rasmussen. However, in the same poll Americans oppose her nomination 42% to 36%. Is she qualified to a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court?
One of the arguments against her is that she has never been a judge before. That is true, but it is also true for about one-third of past Supreme Court justices. However, among those past Supreme Court justices who were not judges, they had on average 20 years experience in the private practice of law. Ms. Kagan has two years experience in private practice, two years. The rest of her experience in academia or government service.
Before her current position of Solicitor General, she had never argued a case at a trial. She has no judicial experience, next to no private practice experience, and thanks to Ted Kennedy, she revealed as little as possible about her judicial philosophy to get confirmed. Her key strength, according to Barack Obama, is her ability to build consensus. I’ll give you a translation of what that really means. Her job will be to vote with the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court and use her persuasive powers on Anthony Kennedy to peel him off and generate as many 5-4 wins as possible. President Obama does little without a purpose and his purpose is to pull the Supreme Court in the same direction as the laws he has jammed through against the will of the American people.
Despite the approval of the Judiciary committee, an effort must be mounted to reject or filibuster her approval. How can we accept someone with so little in the way of qualifications to a lifetime appointment? We know next to nothing about her judicial philosophy. There are no cases on which she has written opinions that can be examined. With regard to what she has written in the government service she simply says I was acting as an advocate for my client, and those are not necessarily my views. Who could argue with that? So what are her views? We don’t know and like Nancy Pelosi claimed with the health care monstrosity, “we’ll just have to pass it to find out what’s in it.” With a lifetime appointment, you can’t take it back later if you disagree with her eventual positions. The track record of the “Trust me” presidency is downright frightening.
With all due respect to Elena Kagan, I don’t see how we can idly sit by and silently accept another Obama abomination of ramming through his agenda without regard for the people who elected him. He is essentially asking us to grant a lifetime appointment that could profoundly affect our liberties, to someone who is a blank slate that we know little about. He should withdraw the nominee and submit another candidate.
This week we had President Obama hosting a seven hour talkathon on his stalled healthcare initiative. His purpose was to show his reasonableness and willingness to listen to Republicans. Republicans took the position that the Democrats couldn’t pass their bill despite having large majorities in both houses of Congress, so why not start over and be truly bipartisan? Doing so might actually produce some bipartisan legislation.
But this was not about bipartisanship it was about a performance. If the Republicans didn’t subscribe to the Democrats definition of bipartisanship (see previous post), then the Democrats would jam it through using a highly controversial technique. Although 60% of Americans oppose the healthcare plan, President Obama will ignore the will of the people because, “a majority vote makes sense.” (See video: Obama Defends Reconciliation: A majority vote makes sense). He is referring to the Republicans using the filibuster in the Senate to block the legislation.
That was Then, This is Now
But it wasn’t too long ago when Republicans objected to Democrats stonewalling President Bush’s judicial nominees. Republicans threatened to change the rules so that judicial nominees could not be filibustered. Now tradition holds that a President generally gets approval on his judicial nominees unless they are unqualified, even if you disagree with their judicial philosophy. For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg clearly votes with the liberal bloc of the Supreme Court with regularity. The Senate confirmed her 96-3. Stephen Breyer, another solid liberal won confirmation 87-9. President Obama, the great uniter, while a member of the Senate voted against both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. So much for bipartisanship. So when the Republicans talked about changing the rules for confirming judges, not nationalizing 1/6 of the U.S. economy, Democrats had a very different view. (See video: “Nuclear Option” is Arrogant Power Grab Against the Founders Intent). Could there be a greater hypocricy? Biden: “”I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” Joe Biden, call your priest.
Americans are Disgusted
Americans are rightly fed up with Washington incumbents who are only interested in increasing the scope of their power and getting themselves re-elected. Their pompous arrogance borders on nauseating. They should all be voted out.
You hear a lot of talk these days about the Senate being broken because nothing can get passed with a majority vote. Everything has to get sixty votes to pass and that’s just un-American. Is it?
The House of Representatives
The Founding Fathers were brilliant in designing the government that has survived longer than any other, and it wasn’t an accident. The House of Representatives was designed to be the branch of government closest to the people. The members come from districts that are sized based on population. It is also in the House of Representatives that all revenue bills (i.e., tax increases) must originate. The Senate cannot create legislation to raise taxes.
The Senate
The Senate was designed with a different purpose in mind. In the form of federalism that they created, the Senate was supposed to represent the individual states. Originally Senators were appointed by the state legislatures and this continued until the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, which provided for the direct election of Senators by the people. The Senate was designed to be a check on the tyranny of the majority. In the House, populous states like New York, California, Texas and Florida, have a lot of representation. To prevent a handful of states from pushing around everyone else, representation in the Senate is the same for Rhode Island as it is for California, two each. In the House, California trumps Rhode Island. In the Senate they do not. Are you picking up the theme?
The Dreaded Filibuster
Being able to filibuster in the Senate is another way of allowing cooler heads to prevail. If legislation before the Senate cannot win over some reasonable number of Senators, then it’s probably not a very good idea for the country.
As proof that things are more partisan today, pundits point to how the number of filibusters has greatly increased over time.
In the entire 19th century, including the struggle against slavery, fewer than two dozen filibusters were mounted.
It is reported that things really took off during the Clinton administration. Hmm, what else was going on then… Hillary Care? We have also seen the out of control growth of the federal government’s involvement in almost every aspect of our lives, such as, how much we can be paid, how much a bushel of wheat should cost, how schools are funded; none of which is in the Constitution as powers the federal government should have. Those are all things that, according to the 10th Amendment, are the purview of the states or the people.
The Filibuster Fix
So if you don’t like the way the Senate is bogged down, instead of taking the brakes off the car, how about dumping the junk in the trunk? The less minutia the federal government gets involved in (let’s start with health care), the less reason, reasonable Senators will have to filibuster.
