Senators fear fallout of nuclear option

[Free Vulcan]

Sorry, but I haven't been for the 60 vote cloture rule for a long time. While I believe in a representative republic, I don't to the point of there being layer upon layer of it. Certainly not the cloture rule. I'd rather see a constitutional amendment for a 60 vote requirement to overturn a SCOTUS decision.

If you win the majority of a chamber, you should control the chamber. Democrat or Republican. If the GOP can't convince voters they should be in the majority, then we take our lumps. You shouldn't have to win supermajorities with extra for 'rogue' defectors just to pass legislation.

[txradioguy]

Sorry, but I haven't been for the 60 vote cloture rule for a long time. While I believe in a representative republic, I don't to the point of there being layer upon layer of it. Certainly not the cloture rule. I'd rather see a constitutional amendment for a 60 vote requirement to overturn a SCOTUS decision.

If you win the majority of a chamber, you should control the chamber. Democrat or Republican. If the GOP can't convince voters they should be in the majority, then we take our lumps. You shouldn't have to win supermajorities with extra for 'rogue' defectors just to pass legislation.

Well said!

[INVAR]

Thanks for the clarification. I don't see how advancing a principle can be surrendering it. Hence my analogy.

I do not see how one can advance a principle if one has already surrendered it.

If the principle being argued is that government has no Constitutional role in dictating our health care decisions (which is the argument we were having which is bleeding into everything else), how can we say we are advancing that principle when we have surrendered that principle in total to accept the premise that government does indeed have authority to dictate our health care decisions?

One you surrender key and vital principles, you never get them back.  Never.  Not within the confines of the institutions you have empowered with that authority.

In the context of this thread, I was reacting to the comment Maj. Bill gave in regards to compromising with the Democrats over SCOTUS appointments.  He rightly notes that the starting position the GOP has consigned itself to, is only considering those people whom should never even be considered for the High Court, given the refusal of the Democrats to ever consider an Originalist to the bench.  I was extrapolating that consequence to the larger argument we were having over the principle of the total repeal of ObamaCare, versus tweaking it to make it more palpable and less intrusive.  The fundamental principle is already surrendered, and just as the GOP has to start from a bad place to confirm justices that should not be on the bench at all - so too is my contention that all arguments about central government-run healthcare will proceed from the same position.

I find it amazing that the hordes of people screaming for total repeal during Obama's tenure are today consigned to going along with only a 20% reduction in ObamaCare's imposition rather than full repeal because the votes are not there, even though the GOP promised they would repeal it 'root and branch'.  Now, they just want to rename it and reduce some of the machinations and penalties and for this we are told it is advancing Conservatism.  My argument is 'no it's not'.  It's simply surrendering the position for the hopes we will have less harshness than we otherwise would have had.

I'm of the mind that we either stand fast on liberty and call any infringements upon it what they are - or we will be conquered by that which we have compromised.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I do not consider Bill to be a 'Problem' outside of the fact his POV  is advocating exactly that which has already been happening for decades....

I am not advocating what we have been doing for decades.  That is a sure-fire recipe for defeat.

What we have been doing for decades is cooperating with Democrats to help them move the country left.  They propose a new social program, or some other stupid idea,  and we cooperate in passing their bill in exchange for them making it "not quite as bad."   A perfect example of that was Bush's prescription drug plan, on which he campaigned.  Some Republicans defended it on the grounds of "well, it wasn't as expensive as the one Gore wanted, so it was a smart move."  That kind of compromise --- to move a bit left so we don't go further left, I oppose because that's how the left has been winning.  They keep grabbing half-loafs again and again, and if you put that together, it has given them a whole lot of left-leaning whose loaves.

I advocate moving as far right as our political power will take us at any given time.  I oppose refusing to move right at all unless it returns us all the way back to 1787 in one giant step.

[the_doc]

Our Senators, in good faith, confirmed very liberal Supreme Court justices like Wise Latina Sotomayor and Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg simply because they thought a President should get his justices. 

They said that a President should get his justices.  But it was obvious to any thoughtful Constitutionalist that no President should have "gotten those justices."  The Republican Senators' statement was just political cover for democratically elected (oops) Republican Senators who simply did not want to stir up a hornet's nest.  Our Republican Senators had a duty to block the head of the ACLU from sitting on the SCOTUS--but they folded.  Their statement that the President "should get his justices" was an attempt to make their dereliction seem noble.   

The highest priority of Congress is defense of the Republic as a defense of the Constitution ("so help me God")--not to get re-elected.  Republicans should know this.  But they don't seem to care.  This is why we have so many compromises--which is why we have had decades of Creeping Socialism, which is why we are now on the brink of disaster.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

They said that a President should get his justices.  But it was obvious to any thoughtful Constitutionalist that no President should have "gotten those justices."

I agree.  I think the "wise Latina" comment alone indicated a fundamentally flawed understanding of the role of a Supreme Court justice, and they should not have confirmed Sotomayor for that reason alone.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

I do not see how one can advance a principle if one has already surrendered it.

If the principle being argued is that government has no Constitutional role in dictating our health care decisions (which is the argument we were having which is bleeding into everything else), how can we say we are advancing that principle when we have surrendered that principle in total to accept the premise that government does indeed have authority to dictate our health care decisions?

One you surrender key and vital principles, you never get them back.  Never.  Not within the confines of the institutions you have empowered with that authority.

In the context of this thread, I was reacting to the comment Maj. Bill gave in regards to compromising with the Democrats over SCOTUS appointments.  He rightly notes that the starting position the GOP has consigned itself to, is only considering those people whom should never even be considered for the High Court, given the refusal of the Democrats to ever consider an Originalist to the bench.  I was extrapolating that consequence to the larger argument we were having over the principle of the total repeal of ObamaCare, versus tweaking it to make it more palpable and less intrusive.  The fundamental principle is already surrendered, and just as the GOP has to start from a bad place to confirm justices that should not be on the bench at all - so too is my contention that all arguments about central government-run healthcare will proceed from the same position.

I find it amazing that the hordes of people screaming for total repeal during Obama's tenure are today consigned to going along with only a 20% reduction in ObamaCare's imposition rather than full repeal because the votes are not there, even though the GOP promised they would repeal it 'root and branch'.  Now, they just want to rename it and reduce some of the machinations and penalties and for this we are told it is advancing Conservatism.  My argument is 'no it's not'.  It's simply surrendering the position for the hopes we will have less harshness than we otherwise would have had.

I'm of the mind that we either stand fast on liberty and call any infringements upon it what they are - or we will be conquered by that which we have compromised.

I think on some level you're seeing a mutual exclusivity I'm not. I want Obamacare gone 100%, but that will leaves the FDA and a host of government involvement in the health care and insurance markets. Is leaving those in place surrendering our principles if we repeal Obamacare?

The question is how do we get back as much of the ground we've lost as possible and how much of an advance for our principles is achievable.

Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and other founding fathers faced the same problem with slavery. One could hardly accuse them abandoning their principles in supporting the Constitution. Right or wrong they made a calculated decision of how much they could achieve towards furthering the principles of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and went for it. I think we should do the same. The question in my mind is how much can we achieve and how do we achieve it.

[Fishrrman]

I posted this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here:
===============================================
The Gorsuch vote will become the pivotal event in the course of the Senate's next two years, and of the entire Congress, as well.

If the Republicans can't do what they must -- if they're unwilling to end "the filibuster" and confirm Gorsuch -- they will have effectively surrendered control of the Senate (and as it follows, all hope of Republican-oriented legislation in the Congress) until 2019 at the earliest.

And the democrats sense this.
If they win this one, their "wall of opposition" will only rise higher.

Years ago when I was getting qualified on the Central Vermont Railroad so that I could run Amtrak's "Montrealer" from New Haven to New London up to Palmer (MA), I went to a CV rules class conducted by one of their road foremen. Over the course of the class, he would instruct as to what the rules required for particular situations, but he also slipped in the comment [that in the face of the rules]:
"Sometimes a man's gotta do, what a man's gotta do."

That is to say, regardless of the framework of the rules per se, sometimes it might be required to "bend 'em" just a bit in order to accomplish the task at hand. Because that was the only way things were gonna get done.

It's time for the Republican senators to do what they have to do.
Vote to end the filibuster if they have to.
But get Gorsuch confirmed and seated!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think on some level you're seeing a mutual exclusivity I'm not. I want Obamacare gone 100%, but that will leaves the FDA and a host of government involvement in the health care and insurance markets. Is leaving those in place surrendering our principles if we repeal Obamacare?

Exactly.  Even a full repeal of ObamaCare itself is only a quarter-step at best.  In fact, a full repeal of ObamaCare would actually result in even more money being spent on Medicare, because the Obamacare financing included taking some money from Medicare.  So even a full repeal of ObamaCare itself would actually strengthen another government entitlement program.  That's the problem with absolutism -- it makes it impossible to agree to almost anything.

The question is how do we get back as much of the ground we've lost as possible and how much of an advance for our principles is achievable.

Every journey begins with a single step.

[Doug Loss]

I'll have to add Zelany to my reading list.

One of the most frustrating things about life is that the "bad guys" never stand up and fight like they do in the John Wayne movies. Life requires being more Atticus Finch than John Wayne sometimes.

Incidentally, the Zelazny book the Major was talking about is "Lord of Light," I'm pretty sure.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Incidentally, the Zelazny book the Major was talking about is "Lord of Light," I'm pretty sure.

I can't believe I didn't mention that....

I love the book, but it can be a bit of a tough read because a lot of it is flashbacks.  So you kind of have to be aware of the sequence of events as you're reading. But the book was a great idea, very well executed.

There's another Zelazny quote I love as well, from his Amber series.  The main character is struggling to reach a particular destination, the "Courts of Chaos" so he can prevent the destruction of all reality.  A smart-mouthed raven is preaching nihilism at him in an effort to get him to stop.  And the character eventually says to the bird,

"I have had a long life, Hugi.  You insult me by assuming I have never considered these footnotes to sophomore philosophy...." 

The entire exchange over a few pages is a pretty withering attack on nihilists, but that bolded line has always stuck with me.   I've lobbed it at more than a few lefties who believe their ability to spout garbage philosophy equals wisdom. 

[INVAR]

I am not advocating what we have been doing for decades.  That is a sure-fire recipe for defeat.

What we have been doing for decades is cooperating with Democrats to help them move the country left.  They propose a new social program, or some other stupid idea,  and we cooperate in passing their bill in exchange for them making it "not quite as bad."   A perfect example of that was Bush's prescription drug plan, on which he campaigned.  Some Republicans defended it on the grounds of "well, it wasn't as expensive as the one Gore wanted, so it was a smart move."  That kind of compromise --- to move a bit left so we don't go further left, I oppose because that's how the left has been winning.  They keep grabbing half-loafs again and again, and if you put that together, it has given them a whole lot of left-leaning whose loaves.

I wholeheartedly concur with those sentiments.  I do not comprehend how you do not see that exact application over your advocacy of compromise with the ACA repeal.

I advocate moving as far right as our political power will take us at any given time.  I oppose refusing to move right at all unless it returns us all the way back to 1787 in one giant step.

That is not politically possible by the arguments you yourself have made in regards to recognizing the reality that a majority WANT what we at one time would have called tyranny. The votes are not there to end an imposition of tyranny that you are refusing to call tyranny.   You are never going to be able to move 'right' when your starting point keeps getting moved further and further Left.

It's not about doing nothing unless we get the full enchilada - but accepting the premise of government having authority it has usurped for itself as a starting point of compromise has doomed any moral advocacy against vehicles of tyranny.

You will forever settle for less and less of what you claim you want because you have already ceded that authority that they should never have usurped in the first place.  We can agree that it is something to work to get rid of, but refusing to call tyranny what it is, and granting it legitimacy as "law", diminishes the authority you would otherwise have to work for full repeal.  It's doing the same thing you rightly decried in terms of our starting position over judicial appointments.