Hey, Democrats, The System Doesn’t Need To Be ’Fixed’ Every Time You Lose An Election Maybe it's your agenda that's broken.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
If you’re under the impression that the system exists merely to facilitate your partisan agenda, it’s not surprising that you also believe it’s “broken” every time things don’t go your way. This is why so many Democrats argue that we should “ fix ” the Electoral College when they lose a presidential election and “fix” the filibuster when they run the Senate and now “fix” the Supreme Court when they don’t run the Senate.
During the Obama presidency, liberal pundits groused about the supposed crisis posed by a “dysfunctional” Congress. In political media parlance, “dysfunction” can be roughly translated into “Democrats aren’t able to do as they like.” Congress, as you know, was only “broken” when President Obama wasn’t getting his agenda passed, not when his party was imposing a wholly partisan, unprecedented health-care regime on all Americans.
In any event, the political establishment spent six years wringing its hands about subsequent GOP electoral success, which was an organic political reaction that strengthened separation of powers and reflected the nation’s ideological divisions. Although you’d never know it listening to political coverage, it meant the system was working just fine.
Yet many of the president’s boosters, including Ezra Klein, then at The Washington Post , began not only arguing that Congress was “broken” (bad) but that it was “fundamentally broken ” (really bad!). By 2013, after Republicans had made gains in the Senate, Klein and others were arguing for increasing majoritarianism to “fix” the problem. It was the GOP’s “unprecedented obstructionism” (a euphemism for disagreeing with Obama on policy) that supposedly left them no other choice.
Now, if the majority of voters had been truly disgusted by “obstructionism,” the GOP would have paid a political price for their actions. The opposite occurred. Perhaps instinctively, voters wanted a more ideologically balanced Washington. So Democrats decided the system was the problem.
What we call “norm breaking” these days was referred to as “reform” during the Obama administration. “Reformers” like Klein and his allies would convince Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a man who once argued that weakening the Senate filibuster would “destroy the very checks and balances our Founding Fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government,” to use the “nuclear option” and blow up Senate rules on judicial filibusters so Obama could stack the courts.
“Thanks to all of you who encouraged me to consider filibuster reform,” Reid tweeted in 2013 . “It had to be done.”
But then the unanticipated began happening. For one thing, the GOP won the majority and Sen. Mitch McConnell, despite immense pressure, refused to give Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland a vote. That was well within his authority as majority leader, his constitutional authority, and his ideological imperative to stop Democrats from transforming the Supreme Court into one that relied on empathy over the Constitution.
This tactic opened a seat for the next president. Then Donald Trump also won. Unexpectedly. And guess what’s broken now?
“The way we choose Supreme Court nominees is broken,” Klein laments , “Here’s how to fix it.”
Here is what Klein said back when he was a filibuster reformer:
Democrats, rather than filibustering themselves in service of a political point, would have weakened the filibuster on behalf of the next majority, whoever it may be. It could be a blow struck against themselves in service of the long-term health of the Senate.
Here’s what he says now as a Supreme Court reformer:
Here, in truth, is where the past few years have left us. The minority party no longer holds a scintilla of power over Supreme Court picks. The majority party can and will jam whomever they want onto the Court, where that person will serve for life.
“The institution is broken,” he said . “The filibuster rests on an unstable foundation,” he said . “Let’s talk,” he said . When it was convenient, his Twitter bio let two-million-plus followers know that he hated the filibuster. Now he’s concerned that the majority party is “jamming” through a nominee?
What Klein probably meant to say all those years was that the filibuster undermined a “healthy” liberal majority. Today, he couches concerns about the system in the supposed tribulations surrounding “life appointments” to the court. I don’t recall similar concerns regarding the lifetime appointments of Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan, although perhaps they exist.
But that’s another debate. For me, at least, the more undemocratic the court is the better — and not merely undemocratic, but randomly undemocratic. Creating term limits does little to change the politics of confirmation, but it could do plenty to change the way justices approach their jobs. A term-limited judge, for example, is one who is concerned about a professional life after SCOTUS, and might act accordingly, meting out favors the way politicians do today.
In any event, there is simple solution: voters should assume that every president will name at least one Supreme Court justice and vote accordingly. The last president who didn’t was Jimmy Carter, and the one before him was Andrew Johnson.
Klein isn’t alone. Others, like Harvard’s Ian Samuels, are more straightforwardly partisan, proposing that the next Democrat candidate promise to add six justices to the Supreme Court to neutralize the power of the textualists and create a progressive court. He’s not alone . Although the Constitution doesn’t stipulate the number of justices needed, and Democrats are free to make such promises if they like, you’d think liberals would have learned their lesson during the Obama years.
The real anxiety driving liberals is the reality of President Trump getting another Supreme Court justice, the kind of nominee any conservative president would likely have picked. This person will presumably help constrain progressive policies because many of those policies rely on coercion and unconstitutional intrusions into personal freedom. Maybe it’s not the system that’s broken, but rather rather the Left’s agenda.
The arrogance of the age — maybe every age — is that intellectuals believe, by default, that they’re smarter, more moral, and more evolved than those who came before them. We often hear the Left gripe about the antiquated nature of the Constitution. It was Klein, after all, who once claimed that the Constitution was confusing document because it is old .
We can disagree about the usefulness of Enlightenment ideas. But when Klein contends that the “chaotic, ugly realpolitik that followed Justice Antonin Scalia’s death” necessitates a “fix,” he is being transparently partisan. Nothing is more chaotic than altering the rules every time you experience a political defeat. And nothing says realpolitik more than attempting to “fix” a system for practical political concerns when your ideological goals fall short.
David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of the forthcoming book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America's Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today . Follow him on Twitter .
Tags
Who is online
93 visitors
How about we fix the damn RUSSIAN MEDDLING THAT HELPED ELECT TRUMP? Instead, we get Trump ready to go in for his private meeting with Putin, for what other reason than get his next orders? It's so obvious at this point that Putin has Trump by the shorts. I'm so sick of watching our national security get put after gop party politics. Its treason at this point, they have no ideals, no morals and no balls, they are total Trumpublicans, serving and protecting him, not the country. And if you had watch the will of the majority being subverted multiple times, while a foreign government put him in power, you might be a little pissed too. [deleted]
you fell for the hoax. seriously... you are in deep.
yes they meddled, and no it did not change any votes.
question....
should we criminally charge obama for his failed attempt in meddling in israels election?
fair is fair right?
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Notes: The Federalist is an English-language online magazine that covers politics, policy, culture, and religion. The Federalist has been described as influential in conservative and libertarian circles. Has a right wing bias in reporting, but is usually well sourced and mostly factual. (8/8/2016) Updated (7/4/2017)
Source:
Yes and the short sighted dumb asses never learn. Can you say Harry Ried.
[deleted]
* The special council rule was put in place by Democrats in the 1970s because they were angry at not being able to persecute Richard Nixon over Watergate, like they are today able to daily attack President Trump with the Russian collusion lie. This special rule that Democrats hurriedly put into place led directly to Bill Clinton being investigated by an independent investigator during the Monica Lewinski affair.
* Harry Reid got the “nuclear option” put in place in order to get Obama’s Supreme Court appointees placed on the bench, and now his short-term gain may prove to be Trump’s long-term gain by having this approach to getting justices appointed on the bench already in place, thank you very much liberal Democrats.
When a party is so consumed with winning at any cost, as Democrats are, they will often do things that undermine civil, common practice in particular, and the larger society in general, and the Democrats, especially since Donald Trump became president, are hell-bent on winning and totally defeating the party of Lincoln, at any cost to themselves and to the nation.
Perhaps if they keep it up they will be able to "fix" it so they can never win. One can only hope.
OH! You mean like ignoring or denying global warming? Wait, wrong party, never mind.
Because his guilty ass resigned before anyone could prosecute him. Are you seriously defending Nixon here? Wow.
Prove that trump didn't collude with Russia? We'll wait. There are literally mountains of evidence that he did, but by all means, tell us how you know for a fact he didn't....
Ever heard of Donald Trump? Case closed.
No I mean by changing the laws. Here is a modified version of the important deleted content: MOST PEOPLE WHO DON'T follow tradition nor obey the constitution, always manipulate rules to favor themselves, not realizing that they often make short-term decisions that will lead to long-term problems for themselves, and the nation. Here are a couple of examples of SHORT SIGHTED PEOPLE changing established rules in order to help themselves resolve an immediate problem, but hurting themselves in the long-run:
BTW it is "climate change" ever since Global warming has been been brought into question by the scientific community as a whole. No one can deny that the climate is always changing so that's the fix. Please take note.
No I am making a point of the irony that some short sighted Democrats changed the law FOREVER in order to gain short term, only to have it used against them. One that, not surprisingly, you have totally missed. Again.
The Nuclear option has, and will continue to harm this country.
It is innocent until proven guilty in this country. If the mountains of "evidence" don't lead to a conviction they are circumstantial. I learned this several years ago. There were mountains of evidence against Hillary, Even proof that evidence was intentionally destroyed to cover up, but still no conviction.. Go figure.
Isn't that like shutting down a plane's engines in mid-flight, saying that the plane is always moving through the air so there is nothing wrong?
No it's like saying no one knows to what extent Humans effect climate change and scientists can't agree on it. We all know the climate is changing, it has always been changing. The question we need to answer is how much are humans affecting it, what activities are casing harm, and in what way (what is the harm and the extent) in order to really do anything about it. Perhaps we need to ask ourselves: Why is it that these political people that tell us they are worried about climate change never ask this most important question, or seek the answer to it. If they wanted to fix it this would be the first question, it is common sense.
So now my question is what is the true endgame?
BTW, When I said the fix is to call it climate change instead of global warming that was a political fix only. If someone is going to spew political terminology and talking points they should at least keep up with the latest, don't you think?.
The climate has changed as much in the last 180 years as it did in the previous 650,000 years, that's the problem. Or are you going to stick with the, "no way 7+ BILLION people can change the environment!!!". SMH
MrFrost, unless I misunderstand your statement, it is not exactly correct. The ice core samples combined with the more recent real time data acquisition, don't support what I think you are saying.
This is a more recent glimpse and present date is to the right.
I'll have to go find the source, but it really doesn't matter. However, Greenland vs Vostock does show some variability. In the end, it is pretty much the same story.
On a slightly side note, one climate scientist has made some measurements showing the Atlantic has crossed a theoretical saline level that could mean the thermohaline circulation (Atlantic Conveyor) has entered a point leading to shutdown.
Your seem to have problems understanding what you read. Where did I say there is no way people affect it? I said the question we should be asking is specifically what is the extent of humans' impact and what activities are impacting it. This is the only LOGICAL way to fix the problem. Looks like you fall into the group of political people who never want to get to the bottom of the true problem because then they couldn't continue use it as a political tool. Shame on you....and if you tried to twist my words, shame on you again.
Yea tell me about it LOL! What's really sad (and telling) is he got 3 thumbs up.
You have a bundle of misleading and incorrect information in that comment, but I'll save myself some time and only address this one.
Mr. Frost, that is not the way courts work. A person who is under investigation or even charged for a crime doesn't have to prove they are innocent, the prosecutor has to prove they are guilty. Now you say there are mountains of evidence to prove he is guilty. It's been quite a long time now we've all been talking about this, so since you have mountains of evidence that proves he's guilty, post it, if you will. All the people who have been charged, not one of them is charged for crimes that has anything to do with Trump and were committed years before the 2016 election and not a one of them are being charged to our knowledge for colluding with Russia over the election to my knowledge. If you can prove different I would love to see it.
And with all the time that has gone by, one should have some idea of what Trump could have done in this so-called collusion to win the election. After reading quite a few of the so-called tweets and such that supposedly came from the Russians, the only conclusion I could come to they were designed to cause racial division, somewhat like a lot of the MSM news today.
The only real proof we have in colluding with the Russians was that of Hillary and Company and we definitely have proof of Hillary's campaign paying an attorney, who paid Fusion GPS, who paid Michael Steele, who paid Russians for information to use against Trump. Now I know this is a little sneaky, but as far as we have found out none of that dossier has been proven true, but it was definitely a round about way of colluding with the Russians. With the Clinton Foundation using a Canadian operation to pass some of their donations through and all the money they received after which favors were given to those same people and countries seems more in line to be people who would be doing unscrupulous things like colluding with Russia, than Trump who appears to have won the election because the Democrats selected, without the voter's choice, a candidate who couldn't build a relationship with her potential voters and called any other potential on the line voters deplorable and much more.
Trump was elected by voters by the most fair way the Constitution could come up with by the Electoral College, which represents all of the states in this country instead of by mob voting in super large cities.
Not surprising no proof of that statement is offered.
Obama nominated 2 candidates for Supreme Court Justices that were confirmed, the Court was not broken at that time … I am thinking it is not broken now .. except for the anti Trump crowd needs something to cry about. There is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court taking on a Constitutionalist / originalists tone. The Constitution is not a living document that can be whimsically changed. … the Supreme Court interprets law and its Constitutionality -- it does not write law
The founding fathers made the Constitution amendable … through said amendment process .. rights and protections granted by the US Constitution have been / can be expanded to include all people within the jurisdiction of the States, not to change the wording of said document to fit one side or the others agenda. The First Amendment does not grant the right of freedom of speech and then state 'except for when someone is offended by said speech'
The United States of American's Constitution (as well as the Supreme Court) is what sets this Nation apart from the world - giving the individual rights over that of mob rule .. what a blessing! Happy Fourth of July!!!
That is such crap, they choose the elite and corporations over the people, and the conservatives on the court specifically look to DENY WOMEN THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. Oh, and they also like to overturn precedence.
Blue sky's and a beautiful Independence Day in my neck of the woods.. Abortion does not seem to be threatened in my dreaded Red State
Hope the rest of your day is better..
Be sure and Vote... I am tried of the elitists in government as well, I think 'we' should stop electing them to go to DC and choose corporations best interest over that of the people.. Do not think one can blame Supreme Court for that
P.s... the difference between a democracy and a Republic is that in a Republic the individuals rights matter, mob rule should never prevail … as the Supreme Court pointed out in the decision siding with the baker regarding his rights being violated .. right along side those claiming that he violated theirs ………… each individual has rights, yet mob rules mentality seems to feel like it should have rights as a collective - be allowed to block traffic preventing people from hearing a speaker they choose to hear ... shout down or threaten violence towards someone with a differing view (two way street - both sides are guilty) - founding fathers did not want mob rule to govern the United States .. Thus 'we' have the electoral college...
We are blessed to be in America!
Trump’s Supreme Court pick was pretty good and, hopefully, he’ll do as well the second time. With any luck, he’ll also be able to replace Ginsberg too and have six reliable votes for sanity.
Democrats won the popular vote for president in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, and 2016. In that time span the Republicans won the popular vote for president in 2004, when the country was in the middle of active wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In 7 of the last 8 presidential elections, more Americans voted for the Democratic candidate than the Republican candidate. More Americans have wanted the Democrat to be president of the United States. This isn't speculation, it is fact.
So let's cut the nonsense about who got the most votes.
HAHAHAHAHA! Scott Pruitt just resigned! Hahahahahaha!
Your post has absolutely nothing to do with the authors seed, but hey, a bump on a good article is a bump on a good article. Thanks! LMAO!
Locked, due to the seeders suspension