Regarding Ben Sasse, Give It A Rest (Erickson)

[corbe]

Regarding Ben Sasse, Give It A Rest

by Erick Erickson

The level of butt hurt from people who turn their noses up at cults of personality is astonishing.

Ben Sasse voted to support the President of the United States and voted against the disapproval resolution in the Senate.

You would think Sasse just ran over puppies in the streets of Omaha. Oh the bitter butt hurt of rejection and disappointment from Sasse fans. For the record, I am a Sasse fan, would prefer he was President of the United States, would have gladly backed him in a challenge to the present President, and am myself disappointed in his vote. But still. It is as if the people who reject the Trump cult of personality have built up their own in Ben Sasse.

<..snip..>

https://theresurgent.com/2019/03/15/regarding-ben-sasse-give-it-a-rest/

[corbe]

   Sen. Cruz, too, though he was just re elected.

[Sanguine]

Normally, I would support Congress taking back their rightful authority, but do not do so now for two reasons:  1) they have not bothered to assert and exercise their power for many years, and this is the issue that they decide to do so?  2) We're not operating under "normal" and continuing to try to do so will hand the country over to the left.

[TomSea]

Sasse has got to be one of the top Conservatives now, Rand Paul and Mike Lee both voted against this? And Sasse was recently move up in CR's ratings. It looks like he's one of the few Conservatives that can be relied on! Top man.

[EasyAce]

Normally, I would support Congress taking back their rightful authority, but do not do so now for two reasons:  1) they have not bothered to assert and exercise their power for many years, and this is the issue that they decide to do so?

@Sanguine
I guess you can file it under a "better late than never" tab. The specific issue in question shouldn't be a reason to reject Congress taking back what the Constitution gave it in the first place. Who's to say there won't be other particular issues over which others will object to Congress taking its rightful authority back? And why should executive overreach be objectionable except when it comes to a particular issue, hot button or otherwise?

  2) We're not operating under "normal" and continuing to try to do so will hand the country over to the left.

We haven't been operating under "normal" for a lot longer than people think, if by "normal" we mean the constitutionally prescribed distinction between the legislative and executive branches. I also think that just because you're allowed to do something it doesn't mean automatically that you should do it, a fine distinction President Tweety doesn't quite comprehend. (We can both think of presidents who demurred from acting despite a legal pathway because they believed, properly, that it wasn't their job to act, in particular instances.)

That said, I should say that I get Sasse's position. He's absolutely right:

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine
I guess you can file it under a "better late than never" tab. The specific issue in question shouldn't be a reason to reject Congress taking back what the Constitution gave it in the first place. Who's to say there won't be other particular issues over which others will object to Congress taking its rightful authority back? And why should executive overreach be objectionable except when it comes to a particular issue, hot button or otherwise?
We haven't been operating under "normal" for a lot longer than people think, if by "normal" we mean the constitutionally prescribed distinction between the legislative and executive branches. I also think that just because you're allowed to do something it doesn't mean automatically that you should do it, a fine distinction President Tweety doesn't quite comprehend. (We can both think of presidents who demurred from acting despite a legal pathway because they believed, properly, that it wasn't their job to act, in particular instances.)

That said, I should say that I get Sasse's position. He's absolutely right:

@EasyAce a month or two I would have mostly agreed with this, but I have recently become "woke" and now understand with crystal clarity that we are not operating under the rule of law.    We don't have barbarians at the gate, they are now occupying the castle and the armory.  To continue to act as if we are operating under the law means that we bind one, maybe both, hands behind our backs and merely shout useless references to the Constitution at the barbarians.  Wrong time, wrong place and wrong methods. 

If we want to hand the nation over to the left, we must continue on as we have been, desperately trying to maintain the terms of the contract that bound us rightfully together for ~240 year and refusing to admit that the left has torn it up and burned it on a fire fueled with now-almost useless American flags.   

It's too late.  We may be trying to cling to the shreds of our nation and our dignity, but the rest of those among us are not.

[TomSea]

Sasse stuck to his principals, Rubio let it be known, this was how he was going to vote a month ago.  Apparently, they all remain, somewhat friends in this.  I'm not going to get into who is right or wrong.

Sasse, from Nebraska, can even from there, recognize the clear danger the porous border represents.