- Democrats filibuster only to make the Constitution not a constitution
- A Daschle of honesty
- Democrats generally lie about the filibuster
Karma, precedent and ‘the nuclear option’
How can Charles Krauthammer often write good stuff and never quite internalize it as reflected in other stuff he often writes? We won’t presume to psychoanalyze the good doctor, it does not rate that, but only express that today’s column, while ostensibly about the ending of the filibuster (for Supreme Court appointments), provides an excellent expression of the why of a constitution and the proper role of the SCOTUS. Key excerpts in that regard follow:
Liberalism does not want to admit that the court has become its last reliable instrument for achieving its political objectives. So liberals have created a great philosophical superstructure to justify their freewheeling, freestyle constitutional interpretation. They present themselves as defenders of a “living Constitution” under which the role of the court is to reflect the evolving norms of society. With its finger on the pulse of the people, the court turns contemporary culture into constitutional law.
But this is nonsense. In a democracy, what better embodiment of evolving norms can there be than elected representatives? By what logic are the norms of a vast and variegated people better reflected in nine appointed lawyers produced by exactly three law schools?
If anything, the purpose of a constitutional court such as ours is to enforce old norms that have preserved both our vitality and our liberty for 230 years. How? By providing a rugged reliable frame within which the political churnings of each generation take place.
Can you believe this guy about Democrats and the filibuster? On this, in a word, Yes. Via Town Hall
Quoting Tom Daschle, former Democrat Senate Majority Leader
Unfortunately, Democrats have far dirtier hands when it comes to the erosion of the institutional pillars of the Senate than Republicans going all the way back to–you know, they used to do filibusters in the House and the Senate. And the Senate the House took them away in the 1830s, and the Senate began taking them away under Woodrow Wilson in 1917–then getting rid of the talking filibuster in the 70s–and then the whole budget process was a Democratic product, and that was in my view a procedural disaster.
Daschle added, “Then we lowered the threshold from 67 to 60. That was a Democratic effort. And then in 2013, we took it away completely for nominations and that was Democratic. So, Democrats who may lament this institutional deterioration, I think there’s a lot of history here that can’t be explained away.”
For an excellent analysis and collection of links making the case that the current talking points of Democrats ,straining to compare the treatment of Garland and Gorsuch, Democrats and Republicans, as regards the use of filibuster are lies and distortions. Via Guy Benson at Town Hall :
Facts Matter: Debunking Democrats’ Misleading Claim on ‘Unprecedented’ Filibusters
R Mall
