Not enough votes in the Senate

The reason why there aren’t enough votes in the Senate to pass legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare is very simple. The proposed legislation does not repeal and replace Obamacare. It’s that simple.

The proposed legislation modifies Obamacare but it is not a repeal and replace which was mandated by the People. And thankfully there are some Senators who know and recognize this fact. Thus there aren’t enough votes for it to pass.

With the mid-term elections just around the corner those wise Senators don’t want to come home to their People and explain why they voted for legislation that breaks their promise. And those that were in favor of the bill will have a lot of explaining to do when they get home.

Both the House and Senate Republicans need to grow a pair, as the saying goes, and pass the complete repeal of Obamacare. Then work on getting the health insurance industry in line and get reforms in on actual health care as well.

 

To Nuke or Not to Nuke?

Recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee started confirmation hearings for Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Goresuch. And to be honest, it was a snoozefest unless you were a Democrat looking to score political points. Then it was a snoozefest and a series epic fails.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Senate Democrats have announced they would oppose Goresuch’s nomination and would attempt to filibuster it. Basically, a filibuster is when a Senator or a group of Senators attempt to derail progress on a particular bill or nomination by speaking for long periods. In other words, it’s what they do when they’re on Sunday news programs, just without as many cameras around.

Senate Republicans, on the other hand, have a not-so-secret weapon. Thanks to the machinations of former Senate Majority Leader and exercise equipment victim Harry Reid, the Senate can approve nominations with a simple majority, a move known as the nuclear option. Typically, judicial nominations needed 60 votes to win appointment, but thanks to Reid, that’s no longer the case.

Since I have no life to speak of, I have given the arguments for and against turning the Senate chamber into Chernobyl on the Potomac some thought, and I figured out the nuclear option may be a foregone conclusion at this point. Republicans have the votes in the Senate just on a straight party line vote to approve Goresuch, and Democrats haven’t figured out how to stop shooting themselves in the foot with a Howitzer to realize they’re not in a good position politically to make a stand. Having said that, I think I might have come up with a way to curtail the fallout from using the nuclear option.

One of the main arguments Democrats have raised in opposition to Goresuch revolves around President Barack Obama’s choice to fill the vacancy left by the late Antonin Scalia, Merrick Garland. Democrats feel Garland should get a hearing before Goresuch because they feel Garland’s seat was stolen. (Well, that’s what happens when you run an unlikable candidate with the political intelligence of a pet rock.) Republicans have resisted, and with good reason I might add. However, my idea involves giving the Democrats what they want.

Yes, I want Garland to have a hearing.

But here’s where things get interesting. Since the Constitution only requires the Senate to give advice and consent to Presidential appointees, there is no need for a long protracted hearing. Just a simple “yea” or “nay.” All the Senate Judiciary Committee leader Charles Grassley needs to do is open the hearing, say “We don’t approve Garland,” and adjourn. They would be done in time for brunch or an early lunch if they wanted to really draw out the hearing. It’s simple, Constitutional, and removes one of the Democrats’ arguments against Goresuch in one fell swoop.

Then, all the Democrats will have is political reasons to oppose Goresuch, which in all honesty are the only reasons they have to oppose him. And they will look like dumbasses to boot, while Donald Trump gets his Supreme Court nominee approved. That’s a win-win in my book.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Like it or not, theft is a part of human history. From the first time Og saw something Grog had and wanted, the idea of taking what doesn’t belong to you has been a part of us as a species. Even though we’ve advanced from Og and Grog’s day (we now have a federal government to steal from and for us), we still have theft, from the small to the grand.

To hear Leftists talk these days, Donald Trump successfully stole a seat on the US Supreme Court with the help of Senate Republicans. See, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland last year to fill a vacancy left by the late Antonin Scalia, but Senate Republicans refused to hold confirmation hearings since it was the last year of Obama’s Presidency. After much kicking, screaming, swearing, and general pouting, the Left have now stated Trump should not be allowed to nominate anyone until Garland is given a hearing, citing Trump “stole a seat.”

Brace yourselves, kids. This one is going to be a doozy.

stolen seat

What the Left believes it means – a spot on the Supreme Court taken by Donald Trump and Senate Republicans that should go to Merrick Garland

What it really means – the Left are still being sore losers

Before we speak about the present, we need to take a step back to talk about the Garland nomination. Although President Obama nominated him, there is no requirement for there to be confirmation hearings. The Constitution states the Senate is to give “advice and consent” on nominees, but it doesn’t go into detail as to the form this advice and consent is to take. The confirmation hearing is a Senate creation and has given us such memorable moments as Republican nominees being grilled like a Chik Fil A sandwich, and Republicans rolling over for Democrat nominees.

Back when Democrats thought Hillary Clinton would win, they warned Republicans not to block Garland’s nomination because they were going to keep the White House. Yeah, how’d that work out for ya? Pretty good?

Now that they are not only out of the White House for the short and possibly long term, but also in the minority of the Senate, Democrats are relying on the stupidity of their followers to create a crisis where there is none. Trump’s victory means he gets to nominate whomever he wants to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Period. Full stop. The End. Thank you for playing, and here are your lovely parting gifts.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I reject the “stolen seat” notion completely because it was never the Left’s seat to begin with. The fact Obama nominated someone to fill the vacancy is immaterial. It does not grant ownership of said seat to any one party or ideology.

But, as with most things Leftists complain about, there’s more to the story. With Scalia’s death, the Supreme Court stood at 8 members. Four of the Justices vote consistently to the Left, three vote to the Right, and one is a wild card that votes inconsistently for either side. Garland’s successful appointment to the Supreme Court would give the Left a minimum of a 5-4 decision in their favor in practically every case that got to the high court.

Then, Donald Trump won the Presidency and that Leftist Supreme Court wet dream became a pipe dream. Now, the Left can still count on their 4 favorite Justices to vote the way they want, but the Right may have 4 Justices of their own if/when Gorsuch gets confirmed by a Republican-lead Senate. Granted, the Left may still get 5-4 decisions, but they aren’t going to be guaranteed. Then, the Leftist Justices will have to actually make compelling arguments to create the majorities they want.

And we know how Leftists hate to actually work for something.

When you consider the Left feels Trump stole the 2016 election by, you know, actually campaigning in states instead of letting Hillary win them, the “stolen seat” idea isn’t that unusual. The Left is trying to find any way they can to instill doubt in people’s minds that Trump is legitimate, so if they can get enough people to think he’s a thief they will get what they want.

The problem is the more they rely on this line of thinking, the less effective it becomes. And it doesn’t get any easier when there is no evidence to back up the notion Trump stole anything. But a lack of facts hasn’t stopped the Left before, so it’s not going to stop them now. Of course, that doesn’t mean we have to play along, does it?

 

Winning the Supreme Court

A lot is being made on both sides of the political aisle of the future of the Supreme Court, and both major party candidates are prospectively expected to replace at least one or two Justices in their futures should they win the Presidency.

Although the next President will have a decision or two to make on the Supreme Court front, he or she has an important partner in that decision: the US Senate. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the Supreme Court can be won.

It’s a common perception that Presidents will pick Justices in line with the same political and ideological bent as the President picking them. That’s half true. When Democrats and Leftists get into power, they have no trouble picking similarly-minded people to fill vacancies. That’s how we got Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. (But more on that in a bit.)

When it comes to Republicans…the reverse tends to be true. Sure, you’ll get a conservative Justice once in a while, but more often than not, Republicans don’t get the conservative Justice they want and compromise on a moderate Justice.

That’s where the Senate comes into the equation. Under current interpretation of the Constitution, Supreme Court Justices undergo confirmation hearings where both sides do their best to malign or deify the nominee. When it comes to the Left, they bring their A games. When it comes to the Right, they bring their C- games. A lot of that has to do with who is in the Senate. There are few rock-ribbed conservatives in the Senate, and those who are usually aren’t on the Judiciary Committee. That plum of an assignment tends to go to party hacks who are more concerned about getting along than getting the job done.

Then, when it gets to the full Senate, the Republican party hacks get their surrender pants on and cave. Remember Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg? Remember the Clarence Thomas hearings? Now, remember the Kagan and Sotomayor hearings? Remember David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and John Roberts and how they were more squishy than principled? The dance was different, but the song remained the same: the Left gets what it wants, while the Right gets to capitulate without getting any positive PR for it.

With the 2016 election, it’s important to consider what the head of each major party’s ticket will do for candidates further down the ballot. Republicans have to defend more Senate candidates, which may give Democrats a bit of an edge. A lot will depend on how the Democrats can make either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders attractive to the Democrat base so their turnout is greater than the Republicans. If that happens, Democrats can take back the Senate and have a shot to take back the House.

On the other side, Republicans typically don’t need much of a reason to go out and vote. To them, it’s more of a duty than a task, and they take it very seriously. Having said that, Republican turnout has to at least match Democrat turnout for there to be any hope of holding the Senate. Then, it becomes a matter of which brand of conservatism holds the Senate. If it’s the conservatism of a Ted Cruz, then the next President will have a bit more spine. If it’s the conservatism of a Mitch McConnell, then a Jello spine it is!

Picking a President to nominate Supreme Court Justices is only half the battle. That President needs a Senate to uphold his or her ideological vision for the Supreme Court to truly change in a significant way.

 

Chuck is doing his Job

MoveOn and other progressive, leftist, and liberal organizations keep calling for Senator Chuck Grassley to “do his job.” Which to them means to hold hearings and appoint President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. They site the Constitution stating the Senate’s job is to advise and consent.

These liberal groups fail to enforce the same “rules” when a Republican President’s nominee is being ignored or rejected by a liberal Democrat controlled Senate. And they forget all of history which shows this cycle repeating itself in every Administration.

Likewise these liberal groups don’t understand plain simple English. They fully believe that “advise and consent” means that the Senate will approve any nominee given to the Courts. If this was truly what that phrase meant then Judge Robert Bork would have been on the Supreme Court before his death. But of course the definition would change when a Republican nominates a conservative Judge.

No “advise and consent” does not guarantee the judicial nominee will be accepted. It does not guarantee the judicial nominee will even get a hearing. The Senate has the full right to reject the President’s nominee outright. The only thing a President can do is make a Recess appointment if the Senate goes into a recess. It is in the President’s best interest to submit another nominee.

Just like a parent not giving their consent to a child’s activity at school. Consent is not automatic in most cases and not at all guaranteed to be given. The Senate is not a rubber stamp to the actions of the President.

The Senate is a check and balance against the actions of an executive branch overreaching it’s Constitutional authority. Each branch of government is a separate but equal power. Interwoven to insure liberty over tyranny.

The role of the Senate is either confirm the President’s nominee to the Court or to deny it. In either case the Senate is doing it’s job and so is Senator Chuck Grassley.

 

An Open Letter to President Obama

President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC

Mr. President,
Hey! How are the wife and kids? How’s the short game treating ya?

If I may be serious for a moment, I know you’re in the process of picking a replacement for late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and you’ve run into some opposition from the Senate Judiciary Committee (who is using the same argument you, Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Charles Schumer, and Senate Democrats in 1960 used, but, hey, who’s paying attention right?). You and I are not on the same page politically, but it’s time we put that aside for the betterment of the country.

That’s why I’m offering to be your nominee to replace Justice Scalia.

Now, before you start sending the authorities to my house to determine my sanity and whether I’m a threat to myself and others, let me explain. I have given this a lot of thought and I think I would be the perfect candidate for many reasons, the most compelling of which are as follows:

  1. I wouldn’t consent to a Senate confirmation hearing. The Constitution states the role of the Senate is to give “advice and consent” to any nominations the President makes. As a Constitutional scholar yourself (or as your followers…I mean supporters keep reminding us you are), you can see there is no requirement to hold any hearings on my nomination, just to give advice and consent. Instead of a stuffy Senate meeting room, we could have the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee come over to either my house or yours and just hang out with a few beers. And from what I’ve heard, you guys do make a pretty good brew in the White House!2. I wouldn’t allow my feelings to get in the way of doing my job. This country is fractured on many levels, so clear thinking from the highest court in the land is essential. Unfortunately, the High Court has allowed emotions and political leanings get in the way of making just decisions with respects to the Constitution. I may not like some of the things you’ve proposed, but I would give them a fair hearing before I rendered my decision. If your ideas are great, they should be able to stand on their own merits in the marketplace of ideas.

    3. I’m not a lawyer or a judge. Yeah, at first that sounds like a knock against me, but hear me out. I have been studying the Constitution since 1987 and feel I have a pretty good grasp and respect for it. That cannot be said of some of the people on your short list. Instead of relying on the simple language of the Constitution, too many lawyers and judges attempt to use legal reasoning so tortured it’s against the Geneva Convention just to get what they want codified into law. I don’t care about being famous; I just want to make something complex simple, and I bring that to the table.

    4. I would make both major parties mad at me at some point. Again, this seems like a negative, but it’s actually a positive. Democrats and Republicans (and their lawyer buddies) love to push for their agendas to be reflected in judicial rulings. I eschew that kind of thinking in favor of original intent. That’s bound to put people’s panties in a bunch!n I mean, how DARE a Supreme Court Justice do his or her job the way the Constitution says!

    5) I would be a LOT of fun! Ask anyone who has worked with me in a cubicle farm about how I would decorate my desk. Imagine that kind of spirit in a black robe and, BINGO!

    The ball’s in your court…er, green. I will await your call, email, Secret Service detail, cease and desist order, whichever you feel is appropriate to address my offer.

 

The Shutdown

This morning we woke up to a government shutdow since no budget has been passed by Congress and any attempt at a budget has been crushed by the Senate. The House keeps passing a budget. Now of course that means that the government shutdown is somehow the fault of the Republican Party but they are incontrol of the House and not the Senate. Yet the Senate is where the budget gets tabled and not voted on and it is controlled by the Democrat Party. Explain to me how its the Republican’s fault again? I’m confused on that bit.

The Whitehouse announced yesterday that in the event of a government shutdown that non-essential workers would be the first to be let go. Hmmm if I ran a buisness, would I have non-essential workers? I think not. I mean that’s like paying the guy who stands at the water cooler all day a nice salary for standing at the water cooler all day. I say let him go.

When the Republican’s are in control of the WhiteHouse, you don’t see the Democrats in Congress going, “Well since we lost the last election. I guess we have to do what you say now.” Which is EXACTLY what they are expecting the Repulican’s to do. The street runs both ways my friends. No the Democrats fight the Republican’s on every measure, every step of the way. There is no difference now.

Also anytime there is a government shutdown, on any level, the ruling party states it will affect the people in a the worst possible ways. I mean come on. There are coins in the coffers still. You send these funds to whichever department is necessary. But the government never does what is necessary. Only what advances their own agenda and ideology, no matter which party is in control at the time.

Shut it down is a good thing. The government should not be in our lives as much as it is already. Having it gone for a few days or weeks will be like a breath of fresh air. And for those whiny people who have their hearts out on their sleaves who are worried about all these people who are being sent home. They will all get their back pay when the government shutdown is resolved. There is no loss for them really.