Going Nuclear in the Senate

Neil Gorsuch’s nomination for the Supreme Court is coming to a vote in the Senate shortly. Democrats on the Senate Committee who grilled Judge Gorsuch came our uniformly against him. Chuck Schumer, the Democrat leader in the Senate, says his party will filibuster the nomination despite Gorsuch receiving the American Bar Association’s highest rating. That organization is not exactly ruled by conservatives.

So why the filibuster tactic? What is Gorsuch’s crime? Could it be that he simply believes judges should interpret rather than create law? Could it be that he thinks there’s something called the Constitution to which he is accountable?

Schumer and his fellow Democrats are being 100% political . . . and 100% childish and irresponsible.

Let’s be honest: Democrats don’t care one bit about constitutionality. They’re all about doing whatever they deem best while ignoring the rule of law. And let’s go one level deeper: they want to continue to allow unborn children to be slaughtered and Biblical morality overall to be excised from American society.

Now, they would never say that. But their actions make it clear that’s where they’re coming from.

Back in 2013, then-Majority Leader Harry Reid stopped all filibusters on cabinet-level appointees and federal judge appointments below the Supreme Court. He didn’t want to have to round up 60 votes to stop debate. That rule-altering precedent was fine to Democrats at that time.

Now that the Republicans are on the verge of doing the same thing for the Gorsuch nomination, we hear cries of “rule of law” from the very people who normally are impervious to such concerns.

For some silly reason, the move to allow a majority vote to stop debate has been called the “nuclear option.” Forgive me if I think such a decision is somewhat short of a nuclear anything. Use the word “nuclear” in relation to something and you can raise all kinds of hysteria.

Democrats should think twice before employing a filibuster on a highly qualified Supreme Court nominee. Of course, saying they should think twice is giving the benefit of the doubt that they’ve thought once already.

The Democrat party has become the refuge of every unconstitutional and immoral public policy. It is filled with radicals who would like to transform America into their idea of a non-Christian utopia. It didn’t used to be this way.

When this latest Senate battle is finally over, I will heartily welcome Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. May he remain faithful to how he has ruled in the past, and may he help restore judicial integrity to a system that is in danger of collapse.

The Gorsuch Hope

The Senate vote for Neil Gorsuch to take his place on the Supreme Court will be coming up soon. As with all Court nominees that Republicans promote, I am both hopeful and cautious about how that nominee will actually perform. So many have had what appeared to be conservative credentials upon first glance, then somehow find a way to look askance at the Constitution once they take their place on the Bench.

Gorsuch has an unblemished record on religious liberty decisions. He seems to have a solid understanding of the First Amendment, which is a decided plus for those of us who believe that Christian faith has had a rough time lately under the Obama regime.

Democrats have carried out their typical whining strategy, starting with no small degree of petulance that Republicans didn’t allow Obama’s Court nominee to go forward for a hearing just prior to the last election. I have no problem with the GOP’s decision to forego that hearing for an administration on its way out. All the Democrats’ talk about how “moderate” that nominee was is smoke.

But they are playing the resentment card regardless:

They are now threatening a filibuster when the nomination comes to the full Senate. Two Democrat senators, from states that now have conservative majorities, have already broken ranks and say they will be voting for Gorsuch. It’s amazing what fear of losing one’s seat can accomplish on occasion.

At Gorsuch’s hearing before the Senate committee, he scored points for his calm, even manner and his devotion to the rule of law. Democrat objections fell rather flat.

All attempts to paint Gorsuch as some kind of extremist were a little silly. But that’s to be expected from silly people:

Personally, I’m concerned that the church Gorsuch attends is very liberal. I’m wondering how he will decide on cases that involve the homosexual agenda, same-sex marriage, and abortion.

Will he become another David Souter, who ended up voting liberal most of the time? I doubt that. How about another Anthony Kennedy, who can never be relied upon? Again, I’m hopeful that won’t be the case. If anything goes awry with Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch, it might be instances of disappointment in the manner of John Roberts on Obamacare.

Yet, given his track record, I remain a supporter of his nomination. I pray he will get to the Court, and then I pray he will show himself as the staunch defender of the Constitution that so many of us have reason to believe he will be.

Going Nuclear in the Senate

Nearly everyone in America believes in majority rule, but that comes in different forms. Majority rule doesn’t always mean a simple majority—anything above 50%—but can also be set up as a type of super-majority. That’s why the Founders said that amendments to the Constitution would require 3/4 of the states voting in favor, not just one more than half. They also said that presidential vetoes could be overridden by a 2/3 vote in each chamber of Congress. Similarly, no president can be removed from office by a slight majority of senators; that action also calls for a 2/3 vote in favor of removal. Can you imagine how many presidents might have been impeached and removed if it took only 1/2 plus one to achieve the objective?

Some decisions should take longer to debate, immune from any one party that has only a simple majority running roughshod over the minority. Last week this came to a head in the Senate, and Majority Leader Harry Reid chose to push Senate rules off the cliff [pardon any mixed metaphors]. For the entire history of the Senate, debate has been protected, and minority views have always had a full hearing before a vote. With 100 senators present, it takes 60 of them to vote to close off debate and/or end a filibuster. Well, at least that was the rule until Reid’s ploy. Now, all executive and judicial appointments can be affirmed with only 51 votes. Who needs the old rule?

Reid, however, in former years when he was in the minority, complained loudly when Republicans, stymied by Democrats’ resistance to President Bush’s nominees, talked about changing the rules themselves. At the time, Reid was adamantly opposed to any change and referred to it as the “nuclear option.” At the time, he was Mr. Filibuster, championing the rights of the minority:

Like Your Filibuster

Just as telling, then-Senator Obama also spoke up on the floor of that body, arguing against any change because it would hamper democratic debate and just cause more division. Well, that was then. Now he applauds Reid’s action and all those Democrats who went along with it. Neither of them refer to it as the nuclear option anymore, but that doesn’t change its nature:

Reid's Gone Nuclear

Don’t be so upset, we’re told. This rule change only applies to those executive and judicial nominations [Supreme Court excluded]. But anyone even half alive and paying any attention at all to how this White House and its allies in Congress operate have legitimate reasons for deep concern:

Majority Rule

Today, executive and judicial nominations; tomorrow, all legislation. It doesn’t take a special prophetic gift to see this coming.