GOP should be careful what they wish for with regard to Supreme Court Nominee

(This column was published in the Dayton Daily News on February 26th, 2016...)

 Within hours of the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia last Saturday,

Republican leadership and the remaining Republican candidates for President voiced
the opinion that President Barack Obama should not pick the successor to Scalia.

Majority Leader McConnell quickly released a statement that said, “the American
people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.
Therefore this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” Senate
Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley offered, “It’s been standard practice over the last
eighty years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during presidential election
years.” GOP front­runner Donald Trump advised a “delay-­delay-­delay” approach
while fellow candidate Ted Cruz said “we owe it to Scalia and the Nation to ensure
that the next President names his replacement.” Marco Rubio said, “The next
President must nominate a justice who will continue Justice Scalia’s unwavering
belief in the founding principles.”

Replacing a staunch conservative with a progressive on the Court flips the balance
of power from leaning conservative to leaning liberal. On issues from Citizens
United, to labor rights, to abortion, gun control, voter’s rights, etc., there’s no
shortage of impactful cases headed the Court’s way. Considering the age of the
three oldest Justices, multiple vacancies during the next Presidential term would
surprise no one. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is 82, Anthony Kennedy is 79 and
Stephen Breyer is 77.

Instead of waiting for a nomination from President Obama, the Republicans
couldn't wait to get on record on how they would refuse to allow this sitting
president to select Justice Scalia's replacement. By merely dragging their feet a bit
and ultimately rejecting the nomination, which is well within their rights and
would’ve been a vastly smarter thing to do, this problem would’ve handled much
more deftly. Having chosen a different path to address this, they look like
hypocritical, spoiled brats at the moment.

Senate Republicans should choose their next steps very carefully. Looking forward,
if the Democrats hold the White House and either President Clinton or President
Sanders is putting forth the nomination, do we think they will be inclined to submit
a less progressive name then President Obama did? I don’t.

If President Trump or Cruz is doing the nominating then the GOP fears become
moot. However, there is nothing currently suggesting either would win in a
comfortable fashion come November. That’s a big risk for the GOP should they
refuse Obama his nominee. What if they lose?

If the GOP’s goal is to block Obama, they can do that. If their goal is to effect the
ideological makeup of the Court as little as possible, they should reconsider their
approach. Obama, a major disappointment to progressives, is unlikely to nominate
a radical. His previous two nominees (Sotomayor and Kagan) are not considered
extreme. If they block him and then lose in November, the new President will
submit their own nominee. By their actions, the GOP may facilitate adding a far
more progressive voice to the Court than Mr. Obama would.

Let's Give the American People What They Want...

You've heard it, I've heard it, we've ALL heard it in the media lately. "The American people don't want it!" We as Americans have an expectation that in our political system that our will should be done. In the recent weeks any number of conservative politicians have stated that the American people don't want Obamacare and that President Obama and his Democratic counterparts should listen to us and put a stop to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act immediately.

Here's Speaker of the House John Boehner saying it:



He's surely not alone as most Conservatives agree to one degree or another that they feel the ACA should be stopped as soon as possible. Senator Ted Cruz spent over twenty hours on the floor of the Senate driving that point home earlier this week. Right wing voices from Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin and Sean Hannity all are predicting the utter destruction of our Country if Obamacare is permitted to carry on.

There's good evidence that a significant percent of Americans also feel less than enthused about Obamacare. The poll website Real Clear Politics, which looks at many polls from various sources, shows an average breakdown of 52% against the ACA, with just 38.7% in favor of the new law. Their results include polls from CNN, CBS/NYT, Rasmussen, ABC/Washington Post among others. Hardly just a sampling of far right wing outlets. It is a fact, there is significant opposition to Obamacare. We can quibble on the merits of the opinions, but we can't and shouldn't pretend they don't exist.

Maybe with just over half of those polled feeling the ACA isn't the way we should go right now, we should listen to them. I don't think so, myself at all, but hey, if more than half the Country feels this way, perhaps we shouldn't ignore them. Americans elect politicians and send them to 50 different State Houses and Washington DC to do "our will." They represent us in these matters and are compelled morally to do so honestly, even if it means they must assume a difficult or unpopular stance.

We all agree on that? Right?

I have one question that I've been unable to get an answer to. If we move from looking at the "will of the people" when it comes to Obamacare and change the issue to gun control, things seem to change very quickly. There's an issue with even more dramatic poll results than the ACA. A CBS poll from March indicates a 90% approval rating, a Washington Post/ABC News poll from April shows a 86% approval rating, a CNN poll from April shows a 83% favorability rating, a Quinnipiac Poll from the Spring comes in at a striking 91% approval.

Here's my question:

If the best argument against the ACA is that a majority of the American people do not want it so therefore we should stop it in its tracks immediately, why doesn't the same thinking apply to background checks/gun control? Remember this vote from the Senate, last Spring?

Someone please explain it to me...


Sources:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politics/senate-guns-vote/index.html

This Week's Ridiculous Weekly GOP Address on Healthcare...

Senator Mike Enzi, (R) Wyoming, says in this week's GOP weekly address that we should scrap the Affordable Care Act because of its partisan construction. I'm not going to shred Mr. Enzi's premise because I'm tired of arguing with people who actually believe President Obama and the Democrats shoved the ACA up the Republican Party's ass and they weren't invited to participate. They were, they said no to almost everything. So, the Dems moved on, and voila! The ACA was born.

Mr. Enzi wants to stop the ACA in its tracks permanently and start anew in smaller steps on health care reform. “We need to focus on common sense, step-by-step reforms, that protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost. Providing Americans with access to high quality, affordable health care is something both Democrats and Republicans should be able to agree upon."

The problem is, that healthcare doesn't work like other things. Its not a typical free market entity, plus the pieces are intertwined, out of necessity. Want to kill the individual mandate? OK, but then kiss the pre-existing condition coverage goodbye as well because if you can't promise the insurance companies that everyone is in the boat, then you'll have adverse selection which means only sick people buying insurance which leads to the dreaded "death spiral." The insurance companies can't survive with such a business model, so such a move would clearly be anti-business.

Sen. Enzi, like so many of his fellow Republicans loves to drone on about "we need to focus on common sense, step by step reforms,.." Short on specifics, aren't we? Sure access to care, choosing a Doctor, paying less are all nice ideas, but they won't just happen. Every move effects multiple parts of the health care industry. You can say you want to improve access but there are ramifications. The uninsured in the country are too often the worst risk pool to be found. That's going to cost a TON of money for the insurance companies to cover them, which they won't unless they get something in return. Like a mandate where now everybody healthy, young and well as the sick and older people can pool their premium dollars together to absorb the expenses of the sickest.

Choosing your own doctor isn't that tough of a hurdle to navigate. But, sometimes when insurance companies are up against it, they might elect to work with physician group B versus physician group A, for economic reasons. So, if you have United Healthcare, but they decide to not renew the contract with the practice your favorite doctor works with...you have a choice. Pay out of pocket or find a new doctor. This isn't a new phenomenon, certainly not unique to the age of the ACA. Its been going on for years.

"Paying less" An admirable goal, but how, Mr. Enzi? If we're paying less for our healthcare, that means somebody is making less as well, and that's not a very popular idea. How do you sell that, sir? Again, it sounds great, but who's going to take less for their services?

These remarks from Sen. Enzi are, for all practical purposes, useless in advancing and improving health care in this country. Its a grand waste of our time and his. Its an insult to the people who are seriously trying to improve a dysfunctional healthcare delivery system. It is ridiculous to pine for these things aloud but be willing to do virtually nothing to realistically address the issue. Please stop wasting our time.

You can watch his full remarks below:

No, the United Nations is not in cahoots with President Obama to come and take your guns...

Have you heard the one about the United Nations and President Obama, teaming up to find a "back door" to overturn our right to own a gun? You know, where the Second Amendment of the Constitution gets basically neutered on a global technicality? Its called the United Nations Arms Treaty. Usually, fears about things like this are spread by "concerned" relatives and hard line conservative/libertarian types who see the Federal Government as some sort of out of control, good squad scheming up ways to strip us of our Constitutional rights, our property, our freedoms, our liberties, our faith, our Christmas trees and our healthcare. And of course, our guns. Absolutely, our guns.

If we were to try and find a poster child for these type folks, I might suggest my cousin, but he's not famous enough to be a poster child on the national level that these sort of things require. We need someone with a higher profile.

Hmmm...

Of course...

This guy...



Alex Jones, talk show host and professional conspiracy theorist, is convinced that the United Nations Arms Treaty has been designed to ultimately produce a complete gun/weapon free populous here in the United States so when the Government decides its time to unleash its secret robots and elves and kill all but the super wealthy because they don't need us anymore, we won't shoot them in the face.

Its all much ado about (probably) nothing. The treaty has no enforcement mechanism, only applies to international transfers/sales, states in its preamble that its not concerned with "the legitimate trade, lawful ownership and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities." Further, it has no impact on private US gun owners weapons. It doesn't circumvent our 2nd Amendment whatsoever. A condition that has been insisted upon by the US since the beginning of treaty negotiations. Finally, two additional things have to happen for this un-enforcable treaty to go into un-enforcable international law. It must pass the United States Senate with a 2/3rds majority as all treaties must before it can be recognized. Trust me when I tell you that there's no way that 67 sitting Senators will endorse this. Not going to happen. The other thing that has to happen is that the President of the United States must also sign it, something that is not a given for President Obama given the fallout from the impact of the mis-information.

This is probably a good thing because currently, there is not a "standard" for the international selling and transfers of arms. We should have one that the civilized nations of the world agree with and comply. We have internationally recognized "standards" for T shirts. Why not weapons?


Sources:

http://www.infowars.com/obama-urges-quick-adoption-of-arms-trade-treaty-by-un-general-assembly/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0vYOvCEBmc

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/alex_jones_dmt_elves_want_the_elites_to_kill_us_all

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/opinion/tell-the-truth-about-the-arms-trade-treaty.html?_r=0

http://www.state.gov/t/isn/armstradetreaty/index.htm

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2013/0411/UN-arms-trade-treaty-Will-it-receive-US-Senate-approval

http://www.astm.org/Standards/D6321.htm

Is the Senate Fililbuster Un-Constitutional?

Interesting read from Ezra Klein, who writes on Emmet Bonduraunt's intention of taking a case to the Supreme Court regarding the filibuster in the Senate, which by most measures, it being abused.

A preview: 

In a 2011 article in the Harvard Law School’s Journal on Legislation, Bondurant laid out his case for why the filibuster crosses constitutional red lines. But to understand the argument, you have to understand the history: The filibuster was a mistake.

In 1806, the Senate, on the advice of Aaron Burr, tried to clean up its rule book, which was thought to be needlessly complicated and redundant. One change it made was to delete something called “the previous question” motion. That was the motion senators used to end debate on whatever they were talking about and move to the next topic. Burr recommended axing it because it was hardly ever used. Senators were gentlemen. They knew when to stop talking.

That was the moment the Senate created the filibuster. But nobody knew it at the time. It would be three more decades before the first filibuster was mounted — which meant it was five decades after the ratification of the Constitution. “Far from being a matter of high principle, the filibuster appears to be nothing more than an unforeseen and unintended consequence of the elimination of the previous question motion from the rules of the Senate,” Bondurant writes.

And even then, filibusters were a rare annoyance. Between 1840 and 1900, there were 16 filibusters. Between 2009 and 2010, there were more than 130. But that’s changed. Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid says that “60 votes are required for just about everything.”

At the core of Bondurant’s argument is a very simple claim: This isn’t what the Founders intended. The historical record is clear on that fact. The framers debated requiring a supermajority in Congress to pass anything. But they rejected that idea.

Read the entire article here...

Source: 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-the-filibuster-unconstitutional/2012/05/15/gIQAYLp7QU_blog.html

Senator Dick Lugar Vents...

Dick Lugar got his ass kicked yesterday by 20% points in the GOP Primary for his Senate seat in Indiana. He lost to Tea Party endorsed Richard Mourdock. Lugar six terms in the Senate couldn't save him and were probably  a factor as to why he'll be unemployed soon.

Mr. Lugar, known for a keen Foreign Policy mind and a willingness to work with those from the other Party, got a few things off of his chest in his late night email statement that was sent out.

Its an impressive statement, if for nothing but its honesty, clarity and frankness. This is the second mostly moderate Senator Indiana has said goodbye to in recent years. Sen. Evan Bayh, after just two terms decided he'd had enough and walked away. Its not a good time to be a moderate, it seems. The themes of Lugar's goodbye letter are clear. Lugar warns his successor against counter-productive partisanship, which Mourdock has pledged he will engage in from the moment he's sworn into office, should he win the general in November. Lugar talks about the state of the Republican party, politics in general and how both parties need to work together, as they did during the Reagan era.

Read Senator Lugar's full statement:

I would like to comment on the Senate race just concluded and the direction of American politics and the Republican Party. I would reiterate from my earlier statement that I have no regrets about choosing to run for office. My health is excellent, I believe that I have been a very effective Senator for Hoosiers and for the country, and I know that the next six years would have been a time of great achievement. Further, I believed that vital national priorities, including job creation, deficit reduction, energy security, agriculture reform, and the Nunn-Lugar program, would benefit from my continued service as a Senator. These goals were worth the risk of an electoral defeat and the costs of a hard campaign. 

Analysts will speculate about whether our campaign strategies were wise. Much of this will be based on conjecture by pundits who don't fully appreciate the choices we had to make based on resource limits, polling data, and other factors. They also will speculate whether we were guilty of overconfidence.

The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy. One does not highlight such headwinds publically when one is waging a campaign. But I knew that I would face an extremely strong anti-incumbent mood following a recession. I knew that my work with then-Senator Barack Obama would be used against me, even if our relationship were overhyped. I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators.

We undertook this campaign soberly and we worked very hard in 2010, 2011, and 2012 to overcome these challenges. There never was a moment when my campaign took anything for granted. This is why we put so much effort into our get out the vote operations.

Ultimately, the re-election of an incumbent to Congress usually comes down to whether voters agree with the positions the incumbent has taken. I knew that I had cast recent votes that would be unpopular with some Republicans and that would be targeted by outside groups.

These included my votes for the TARP program, for government support of the auto industry, for the START Treaty, and for the confirmations of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. I also advanced several propositions that were considered heretical by some, including the thought that Congressional earmarks saved no money and turned spending power over to unelected bureaucrats and that the country should explore options for immigration reform.

It was apparent that these positions would be attacked in a Republican primary. But I believe that they were the right votes for the country, and I stand by them without regrets, as I have throughout the campaign.

From time to time during the last two years I heard from well-meaning individuals who suggested that I ought to consider running as an independent. My response was always the same: I am a Republican now and always have been. I have no desire to run as anything else. All my life, I have believed in the Republican principles of small government, low taxes, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and trade expansion. According to Congressional Quarterly vote studies, I supported President Reagan more often than any other Senator. I want to see a Republican elected President, and I want to see a Republican majority in the Congress. I hope my opponent wins in November to help give my friend Mitch McConnell a majority.

If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve. The most consequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise.

Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don't succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.
Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.

Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today – from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.

I don't remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.
I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that. I hope we will demand judgment from our leaders. I continue to believe that Hoosiers value constructive leadership. I would not have run for office if I did not believe that.

As someone who has seen much in the politics of our country and our state, I am able to take the long view. I have not lost my enthusiasm for the role played by the United States Senate. Nor has my belief in conservative principles been diminished. I expect great things from my party and my country. I hope all who participated in this election share in this optimism.

The Veterans Dog Training Therapy Act

Videos Posted by P.O.T.U.S. (Sirius/XM): May 6, 2011 3:24pm: "The Veterans Dog Training Therapy Act"

An example of bipartisan legislation. As Rep. Grimm said, "a win -win." Perhaps we should have a few dogs roaming the House and Senate chambers, eh?

(Smart ass comments in 3-2-1....)