Why yes it is. He was over the target, that’s why MoveOn decided to waste our time with a complaint. Meanwhile, we keep learning that the Democrats are more and more ensnarled in a massive scandal.
It is unlikely that they do. However, it might be a worthy strategy for the Republicans to force it. A Powerline notes here, the filibuster was meant to not shut down debate, but encourage more of it. So why not force the Democrats to do it the old fashioned way, and that means make them hold the floor. All Senate business would stop, and it would be a nice political strategy for the Republicans to force into public view more Democrat lunacy on whatever they say from the floor.
It is too soon to play that game though. Closer to the midterms would have a better effect. The Republicans should get the nominee confirmed, and then, at a later date when the Democrats filibuster–and they will–make them earn the floor by holding it.
It appears that Sen. Warren decided to
grandstand demagogue the Trump executive order on temporarily setting aside immigration from terrorist countries. Legal Insurrection has the lowdown on the media’s lies. And yes, they are lying en masse on this issue (see post above as well). Meanwhile, see Warren’s misinformed sycophants below:
Donald Trump is on a roll of focus and unforeseen opportunity as two events seemingly not related have converged and propelled his campaign this week: the Democrat campaign against guns (and its farcical sit in) and the Brexit vote.
We find this week the Democrats becoming apoplectic by interfering with the work of Congress, and essentially shutting down the operations of the representative branch against the rules. The Democrats decided that they also would sing “We Shall Overcome” and they chanted “No Bill no Break” and then they promptly went on break the next day after their catered sacrifice came up on holiday for congressmen.
Nothing really diminishes the seriousness of Civil Rights than the equation of gun control—a violation of rights—with the right to vote, or to peaceably assemble, etc. But then again, the inebriated sounding John Lewis (D-Ga) has been kind of nuts for a long time now as he believes that sharks have a genealogical memory and they still swim the route that slave ships once travelled hundreds of years ago looking for slaves thrown overboard (I wish I could find the actual statement, but I saw him say it on CSPAN from the floor some years ago).
Nothing says to the voters (except the most dedicated Democrat) that our political officials are not only bankrupt, but have no principles than this stunt performed by the Democrats in the House this week. It is especially egregious when Sen. Ayotte was purportedly working on a compromise bill that would have satisfied House Democrats a couple of days before the sit-in. Separation of powers was working, unbeknownst to Lewis. But let’s not assume Lewis was not aware. He knew what he was doing and he knew there was a bill coming. Still, Lewis and the Democrats are not smart. Their actions and statement only reinforce to the public that Trump means business and is correct in his opinions that our professional elites are either dolts, or they are lying to us. There really is no in between, or moderate option any more, unless, of course, you want to pick both dolt and liar.
Charlie Rangel (D-NY) emphasized the point of the Democrats’ shamelessness, and their callow concerns, when he stated that while the government needs to limit access to guns, that he and other elites “deserve” to be protected by guns. Of course, we common folk don’t need to protect ourselves.
A day after Hillary made her “serious” speech calling out Trump for a series of faults—most of which verifiably untrue—Trump hit back with a more devastating speech and a website to go along with it noting the mostly verifiably true dishonesty and corruption of Hillary Clinton.
Then came Brexit.
Among the most insidious of the regulations from the EU—this is for all of you italian food fans—was the banning of dipping your bread in olive oil. And to think, some just can’t understand why the people chose to get out of the EU.
Hillary is absent today, silent even. Recall that in a bit of arrogant bliss, Obama saying, and Hillary agreeing, that should the U.K. leave the EU that the country would be diminished, and “go to the back of the queue”? Both Hillary and Obama are representative of an old order—a sort of Ancient Regime—that is crumbling.
What made the greatest impact that will resonate was Trump’s response today:
The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.
Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.
The discerning reader will note that Trump is paraphrasing Abraham Lincoln: “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
That of course if the Gettysburg Address and no less alluded to here by Trump on the matter of Brexit. But his is a response to the long 16 year domestic drought while wandering in the desert. While not to replay what has gone before us here, here, here, here….we conclude with the simple note that Trump represents much more than meets the eye. Now that the campaign is limited to two people (the libertarian really does not count), Trump is focussing the debate in ways that even Hillary cannot contend. His is a campaign of restoration and return.
The choice before us is the same as the choice before the British: freedom and patriotism, meaning borders and the ability to govern ourselves absent enslavement to a globalist impersonal bureaucracy. The rejection of that is a “new birth of freedom” and one of consent by conscious choice. This is politics for grownups.
The professional elite—including the #NeverTrump which = #RepublicansforHillary—still do not get it, and they make the same mistakes over and over again, believing that somehow, someway, Trump or the Brexit supporters, will implode.
Harry Neumann used to say that there is a difference between scholarship and insight. Few have insight.
This is Trump’s moment. He’s presently pitch perfect.
There is a lot of hypocrisy to go around. The Democrats have always tried to thwart the appointment of the Republicans and visa-versa, especially in the era after Robert Bork, where the Democrats used ideology as a reason to oppose, and rejected the idea of Natural Law, to defeat this otherwise highly qualified nominee–I wold say the most qualified nominee of his time.
As Ann Althouse noted in her blog:
Obama is saying that he has the power under the Constitution to nominate someone to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court even in the last year of his presidency and that there’s nothing in the Constitution that says he can’t. Of course, the Constitution also provides that the appointment isn’t complete until the Senate votes to confirm, and there’s nothing that says that power must be exercised within a certain period of time. These are opposing powers and the present struggle is political, which the President surely knows. Part of the politics is making claims based on interpretations of the Constitution, and each branch of government tends to interpret its own power broadly.
Yet more specifically, as Powerline notes correctly that the Senate does not have to hold a vote, at all, if senators don’t want to:
The Framers expressly based the Constitution’s “advice and consent” model on the approach used in Massachusetts, under the State’s Constitution of 1780. And, looking through years of archived nomination files, I found myriad examples of nominations made by the governor that received no up-or-down vote from the “Privy Council,” the body that provided constitutional advice and consent.
But the best evidence of the Senate’s power not to vote on nominations is found in the Framers’ rejection of an alternative approach to appointments. As an alternative to the “advice and consent” model, James Madison proposed a discretionary Senate veto. Under that plan, a president’s nominees would automatically be appointed unless the Senate mustered a majority vote against that nomination within a fixed number of days.
In short, Madison would have put the burden on the Senate, to affirmatively act to block a nomination. But the Framers rejected his proposal, and chose instead the “advice and consent” model, placing the burden on the president (and his supporters) to convince the Senate to confirm his nominee.
As the Adam J. White of the Weekly Standard writes:
And history reflects the Framers’ choice. Presidents have made 160 nominations for the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed only 124 of them. And of the 36 failed nominations, the vast majority of them (25) received no up-or-down vote.
To that end, the Senate can structure its own rules to govern the advice-and-consent process. It had constitutional power to establish the filibuster system. It has constitutional power to abolish or reform the filibuster. And it probably should. But the Constitution leaves this choice to the Senate alone—just as it leaves the Senate free to decide whether to consider a president’s judicial nomination.
No matter the political machinations–and there’s lots of that to be outraged about, and that may interest us–the most important consideration here is the Constitution and the functioning of the republic under the rule of law.
No matter what Obama or Schumer, or Reid say, the Constitution governs what institutions may or may not do. To speak in manner contrary to it is irresponsible and places political expediency above the rule of law. This means that one day, the Republicans may try to hammer through a nominee while Congress is in the hands of the Democrats. It is still the will of Congress, which also represents the will of the people, to either confirm or not, or hold a vote, or not.
As Federalist #51 notes, the branches were made up to be counter each other in the service of freedom:
It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
The Congress in this instance is fulfilling its duty as stated by the Founders. In some way it is checking a president who has run amok of his office. The Senate is taking back some of what the Constitution allows and asserting its constitutional rights.