The affable and boyish, Neil Gorsuch, replete with fist bumps, has been sworn in as the newest justice on the US Supreme Court, giving a home court advantage to the conservatives, through the good office of President Donald Trump, and another pyrrhic victory for the administration who seems to have needed every chit, and legislative trick to shoehorn him in. But, the this is familiar territory, as with Trump’s cabinet level positions -- such as Betsy DeVos for education.
The whole affair left a bad taste in the mouths of the public as they watched the to and fro between Republicans and Democrats, as they pounded away at each other. For the Dems, the situation was clear, after the denial of President Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland, that was successfully blockaded by the GOP. Meanwhile Chuck Schumer could not, in good legislative conscience, hand the victory to Trump, yet he also may have shot his party in the foot, by using the filibuster, which had been a bipartisan tool that may now well cost the party in future legislations.
As Barron’s noted, “The point of the filibuster was to strengthen the minority to force president and majority lawmakers to take their opponents views into consideration - to force them to be more moderate in whom they nominate and in what they enact.”
Established near the end of the 19th century, the filibuster (debate) allowed a leapfrog over over the usual “three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn,” unless they “bring the debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. The only bills that cannot be filibustered are those few considered under provisions of law that limit time for debating them,” but,and this is a big but, changed by a simple majority vote with a rule that itself be filibustered, requiring two-thirds of senators who are present and voting to end debate.
Then with a majority party appealing even a rule change as unconstitutional can be done. The presiding officer, in the Senate, is generally expected to rule in favor of the rules of the Senate, but any ruling from the chair “may be appealed by a simple majority of Senators.” Harry Reid used this in 2013 when he declared that majority rule could change long held beliefs about nominations, other than the Supreme Court. Coming full circle, “on April 6, 2017, that precedent was further changed by Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority to include Supreme Court nominations.”
While the filibuster has been used, by both parties in the Senate, its use while changed has been given historical animus when used famously by Strom Thurmond, a conservative “blue dog” Democrat, against the 1957 civil rights bill. Southern senators also filibustered the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Fair Housing Act of 1968, and the Equal Opportunity Act of 1972.
Notably, few have succeeded, yet, some observers believe that the Democrats did “the country a service by forcing the real nuclear option of all nominees,” yet while that may, or will be seen in the future, not only for future legislation, but also for replacing future spots for aging justices, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Some are now saying that the prolonged partisanship is to blame and not the loss of the filibuster for any future Democratic battles. Writing for The Atlantic, Tim Donnelly and Jeffrey Rosen said that, “it’s time to acknowledge that the cause of the breakdown in the Senate isn’t the end of the filibuster, but polarization in the country—which political scientists Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal suggest is as extreme in Congress in recent years as it’s been since the decades after the Civil War and Reconstruction. And, if polarization is, indeed, the cause of the Senate’s problems, then there is no easy solution.
”If the Democrats are to score any wins then it may be due to the failure of the Trump administration to score any legislative victories, as it has failed to deliver -- the travel ban stuck in appeal, and the defeat of the American Health Care Act, then even some of the more die-hard Trump fans may feel the burn, more than Jane Fonda encouraged us in those 80s exercise videos. When and if the failed promises, the hits in the household budget, and the failure to make America great again, then even with even deeper partisanship defeat may occur. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, even as minority leaders might, just maybe win a few in this ballpark, even with bases loaded.
The Trump White House is beginning to occupy its own alternate universe, nearly Tolkien like in its assertions, about the mythical - maybe magical - “deep state” - what The Chicago Tribune defined as “an alleged shadowy network of powerful entrenched federal and military interests,” that are undermining the president’s efforts.
There is no evidence to support these assertions, and perhaps the reference is to the Caucus of GOP conservatives that defeated the replacement for the much derided Obamacare, that has helped over 20 million people with health coverage, and which nearly 75 percent of Americans want to remain.
The budget -- “skinny” as it is -- offers little to reality with draconian cuts out projects like the Great Lakes restoration, a bipartisan effort that keeps hundred in full employment, and is sure to cut off Trump’s nose to spite his face. So even with the regret over the loss of the filibuster, the GOP may be defeated merely by self-implosion.
There are those that still support him and only want the country to give him a chance. In fact a recent visit to Wilkes-Barre by the Tribune revealed this sentiment, with one man even saying, “They’re going to do anything have to do to make sure Trump doesn’t succeed,” hinting at the ubiquitous “they” that might be members of the aforementioned “deep state.” And, another even noted, “There’s a bias,” sure to change if jobs are not seen, and some of the very programs, especially those of the Great Society, are damaged, such as Medicare and Medicaid. While Candidate Trump said, he would not, touch those entitlement programs, it is entirely possible that to keep other GOP leaders happy, after long being in the minority, that he does.
That same budget, wants to increase the world’s largest military budget, and shore up the deficit for them, and not John Q. Public, making even a diehard supporter think twice about continuing support for the president.
Last November there were predictions that the often competing campaign promises, (which have now devolved into competing factions) would prove to be problematic and his advisors might be a team of rivals, especially since most have little experience in government, and often have great wealth as their only asset. And, we have seen that with the reassignment of Stephen Bannon from the National Security Council, and even more reassignments.
With rumors that Reince Priebus might also be moved, or even sacked, it looks as if there truly will be a shakeup, especially with the defeat of the AHCA. And, it’s quite clear that Trump’s biggest mistakes are, that as a non-politician, he has no experience over some of the most pressing issues, making the case that there is no White House leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment