Don’t Go Nuclear, Be American
Senate Republicans should not use the “nuclear option” for Neil Gorsuch’s appointment to the Supreme Court because the best option is to force Democrats to oppose him publicly.
Here’s a quick recap.
Justice Antonin Scalia died last year. McConnell refused to let Obama’s appointee, Merrick Garland, to get a hearing in the Senate, which made the SCOTUS nomination a legitimate presidential campaign issue. Trump got elected. Trump nominates Neil Gorsuch. Democrats threaten to oppose.
Democrats. Threaten. To. Oppose. They can’t STOP.
The Founders designed the U.S. Senate to be slow because freedom thrives with limited government. It is a uniquely American concept to limit government and one way we (America) does that is to slow things down.
Patriotic Americans use their freedom to provide for our families, help other people, and improve the world.
In the recent past, a Democratic threat to filibuster prompts a Republican surrender. Just two weeks ago, Paul Ryan proposed his three phased repeal/replace Obamacare strategy because he wanted to maneuver around the Democrats’ filibuster.
The filibuster is designed to consume debate time in the Senate. It gives opposition a tool to use Senate rules to go slower…so that less stuff happens.
Allow me to make the case why the Democrats filibustering Gorsuch is a good thing.
Getting Gorsuch on the Supreme Court will be a testament to Americans’ political will.
First, it is a promise to the American people. Trump has made many public displays of keeping campaign promises. To his credit, Mitch McConnell (KY, 40%) did not give Obama’s appointee a hearing because he wanted the American people to decide on who they wanted in the Supreme Court. November 8, 2016 showed the world that Americans wanted an originalist, pro-lifer on the bench, even if that means withstanding a filibuster. So be it.
Second, it exercises the Constitution. Remember when you heard about “checks and balances” in your civics class? The reason why is because our Constitution is designed to safeguard personal liberty via limited government. It is worth our freedom and future to ensure Gorsuch gets on the bench without making business faster in the Senate. We want a conservative Supreme Court and a slow-moving Senate – both of which would prevent the centralization of power in the Executive.
Senate Rule XIX (the Two Speech Rule) says that Senators are allowed two speeches per item discussed. Meaning, the current 48 Democrats (including the “Independent” Bernie Sanders) can all speak twice against Gorsuch, but not more than twice. According to the rule, when everyone who wants to speak has done so twice, the issue at hand is up for a simple majority vote.
Meaning, the filibuster just takes time. Republicans must have the political will to let the Democrats exhaust Senate Rule XIX.
Third, Democrats must physically STAND and TALK. The average age of a Senate Democrat is 63.1. I doubt all 48 Democratic Senators will have the endurance to take too much time to filibuster. They will speak long enough to get headlines and campaign-ad material, then they will sit. This is the part no one talks about: sixty-somethings are going to be required to physically exhaust themselves in order to delay Gorsuch. My bet is that the Democratic Senators are as lazy as most of their paid protestor constituency.
Remember, Gorsuch will judge on critical cases involving your freedoms. That is worth letting Democrats exhaust themselves into frustration and humiliation.
If the enemies of freedom want to stop Gorsuch, we should make it as hard as possible for them.
But what about the “nuclear option”? Why shouldn’t Republicans just change the rules and require a simple majority to get Gorsuch appointed?
First, conservatives support and defend the Constitution. We revere the wisdom of the Founders because it changed history by organizing a government that serves people only by their consent. That did not exist anywhere before America. Streamlining the process in the Senate by requiring a simple majority is a political tactic that may win a battle, but will contribute to bad a future for freedom.
Today’s tempers should not outweigh history’s hindsight.
Second, it lets bad leaders stay bad. Leadership provides purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish a singular vision. Nuking the filibuster lowers the prerequisite for good leadership by rewarding bad leadership.
Gresham’s Law of of Economics says that, “bad money drives out good money.” For example, if an alternative currency (like paper – which is prone to inflation) is ever accepted as “equivalent” to a better currency (gold – which retains its nominal value), then the better currency will disappear from circulation. The bad will drive out the good.
Likewise, if the nuclear option allows items to pass through the Senate with a simple majority (paper currency), then it will replace the 60 vote threshold that made the filibuster an essential tool to slow legislation down in the Senate (gold).
What this bad currency will look like is that Party leaders (McConnell) will further centralize influence over their chambers, which dilutes the power of your representation (unless you from Kentucky or Wisconsin’s 1st District).
Lastly, Americans must re-learn to be American again. De-constructing our federal system by un-limiting government is not an American idea, nor is it what helps you. From a generational perspective, more leaders must assert the Constitution’s principles to teach younger generations the value of freedom lest we raise tens of millions who value political expediency and provision from their government. Neil Gorsuch is an originalist. What does it say about dismissing Original Intent so that an originalist may be appointed?
Nuking the filibuster is about guaranteeing political outcomes – a truly un-American idea.