RANGER AGAINST WAR: Filibustering, But for What? <

Thursday, April 06, 2017

Filibustering, But for What?

 We're living in a bad dream
They've forgotten all about mankind 
--All Those Years Ago
George Harrison 

You can cry a million tears
You can wait a million years
If you think that time will change your ways
Don't wait too long 
--Don't Wait Too Long,
 Madeleine Peyroux

It is understandable that the legions hooked up to the IV of daily hatred spewed forth from the media towards every move of their newly-elected President would come to meld with that angry mindset. To cower before every condemnation, and lash out with frustrated fury to any and everyone with whom they feel will be in resonance.

But the historic partisan Democratic filibuster of  Supreme Court nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch -- by all accounts an outstanding jurist -- is madness.

Gorsuch was admired by most mainstream Democrats up until now (including our own Sen. Bill Nelson [D-FL], until he decided he did not), so what could be the reason to end Senate rules which have allowed for centuries of bipartisanship, other than pure spitefulness?

In the anti-Trump New York Times, Neal K. Katyal (acting solicitor general in the Obama administration) in a considered Op-Ed explained why liberals should back Judge Gorsuch for the ninth seat on the Court.

Still, the Democratic grandstanding continues. What makes Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren MDP's? Republicans will probably have to invoke the "Nuclear Option" -- a simple majority -- first used by Democrats in 2013 (when former Senate majority leader Harry Reid [D-NV] convinced Senate Democrats to change Senate rules.)

Some Republicans warned the move would come back to haunt the Democrats.

Imagine if the roles were reversed and it was Republicans who were standing on the Senate floor blocking a vote. The media would go ballistic.

Let the nomination process begin, and the democratic rule of law hold fair sway.

Labels: , ,


Blogger Ael said...

Hmm Lisa, I seem to recall a fellow named Garland.

While you will no doubt point out a distinction,
I am not sure I see a difference.

Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 5:15:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

This is an historic filibuster; but you know that, Ael.

Spite, like I say.

Thursday, April 6, 2017 at 9:29:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous David said...

The real casualty here is whatever tattered shreds remain of an independent and non-partisan judiciary.

You are no doubt correct that were it the other way around, it would be liberal media cheering a victory over obstructionist Republicans and conservative media condemning the departure from tradition.

Regardless of who started it, now that the precedent is firmly established, Democrats will freely make use of it next time they are in the same position.

Much like the now late, lamented notion that current and recently retired military officers should not be defense secretary, I would imagine.

Friday, April 7, 2017 at 4:53:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Ael said...

Perhaps it is spite.
However, one of the most successful repeated game theory
strategies is called "Tit for Tat".

Basically, you do to your opponent whatever he did in the last round.
If he cooperated, you cooperate. If he didn't, you don't.

It is then up to the opponent to decide how the overall game turns out.

Friday, April 7, 2017 at 8:45:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous David said...

Ael -- That is the second-most successful strategy for the prisoner's dilemma.

The most successful is tit for tat with the wrinkle of cooperating occasionally regardless of what the other side does.

The reason for that, in the simulations, was because tit for tat players playing each other were fine unless something went off on the wrong foot, in which case there was perpetual recriminative war.

Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 12:37:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home