What do the late Michael Brown and the living Harry Reid have in common?

A few days ago, I wrote about the consequences of individual decisions as they related to the events in Ferguson, Missouri; Staten Island and Brooklyn, New York and Missoula, Montana. It seems that in our civil society, we no longer place any responsibility or accountability on the person who makes decisions — realizing that there can be adverse consequences to bad ones.

But this issue isn’t just playing out on the mean streets of America, it’s on Capitol Hill as well.

You see, awhile back, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made decisions about the procedural operations of the Senate for which he may now reap the consequences — or will he?

As reported by the Washington Examiner, “Senate Republicans, who condemned a Democratic decision last year to require only 51 votes to confirm judicial and executive branch nominees, are struggling to decide whether to reverse the so-called “nuclear option” or leave it in place when they take the majority in January.”

“The rules change lowered the threshold for judges and President Obama’s executive branch appointees from 60 votes to 51 votes. Democrats invoked the change with a simple majority vote rather than a typically required supermajority, infuriating Republicans, who promised the Democrats would “pay a heavy price” for the move. But with the majority just weeks away from their grasp, the Republicans are “soul searching” about whether to change it back.”

Yep, the Democrats did pay a heavy price, with the largest GOP House majority in quite sometime and a large swing in the Senate – as a matter of fact, 30 Democrat Senators who voted for Obamacare are now no longer in the upper chamber of our federal legislative branch.

And I recall two statements from President Obama early in 2009 after his victory: “elections have consequences” (yes they do) and “I won” (not this time, my friend).

So will there be consequences for the Democrats in losing — after all we’ve already seen the intransigence from President Obama, while Reid has vowed to be an obstructionist for the GOP Senate majority — kinda like those 367 pieces of legislation passed in the House that sit on his desk? Or the fact that the Senate under his purview this year did not pass a single appropriations bill — there are only 12, one per month.

So here is the interesting dilemma –or perhaps not. Should the new GOP Senate majority maintain the simple majority rule, as unilaterally changed by Reid for partisan political gain? Or should the GOP play nice and change it back allowing the Democrats in the Senate to resemble that pesky mosquito that buzzes your head while you’re trying to sleep on a hot, humid summer night? (And being from the South, I don’t like mosquitoes).

Should the Democrats be forced to live under the consequences of their decision — as if they read their own liberal progressive press and didn’t believe there would EVER be a GOP Senate majority?

My assessment is that Reid — along with Obama — decided to change the filibuster rule, a time-honored tradition in the senior deliberative body to protect the minority — believing they could have their way and IF the GOP would win the Senate they’d live up to a higher standard — unlike progressive socialists — and change it back. Therefore, no consequences for what the Senate Democrats did and they’d then force the new GOP majority to clear the 60-vote threshold.

Here is clear evidence of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals Number 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this, because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)”

So you can bet Democrats expect the GOP to change the rule back after their abuse.

Senate Majority Leader West would leave it exactly as it is. Leave it as Harry Reid decided and make the Senate Democrats live under their action. I wouldn’t fall into the Democrats’ predictable trap, who based everything on their own nefarious nature in opposition to the GOP benevolent nature — living up to a self-imposed rule.

Actions and decisions have consequences and that is the lesson to be learned. And consider this, what would the liberal progressive media and the DC liberal pundits say? They were the ones so silent when Harry Reid did what he did – as a matter of fact, I could bet they were cheering and laughing.

While they were in the majority, the rights of the minority party were meaningless. It’s kinda like a “Golden Rule” in reverse — do back unto others as they have so done unto you. And how would Harry Reid or any Senate Democrats be able to say a single word in opposition? After all, they’re simply submitting to the rule he changed….unless at the last minute before the end of this terms Reid changes cit back. And I wouldn’t put that bit of chicanery past him.

So what is the forecast within the GOP Senate conference?

The Washington Examiner says, “meeting behind closed doors Tuesday with soon-to-be Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., most members appeared undecided about what to do, although a few have come out strongly in favor of or against reversing the rules change. “There’s a careful and robust discussion but it’s still ongoing and no decisions have been made,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Tuesday evening as he left McConnell’s suite of offices in the Capitol. Republicans don’t really benefit by leaving the rule in place in the short term, since Obama remains in the White House for the next two years. That could all change, however, if a Republican wins the White House in two years and the GOP keeps its majority in 2016. Then it would be much easier to confirm GOP nominees with 51 votes, much the way it worked for Democrats this year, who are on target to confirm a near-record number of judges as well as many controversial executive branch nominees who otherwise would have been blocked by the 60-vote threshold.”

So I say leave it in place as a simple 51-vote majority. “I would not have invoked the nuclear option,” Cruz said. “I think it was a mistake. But, once it’s done, I don’t think we should go back. I don’t think there should be one rule for Democrats, and one rule for Republicans.”

The Examiner says, “some Republican lawmakers reason that if they undo the Democrats’ nuclear option and return to the 60-vote threshold, Democrats will simply reinstate it the next time they are in the majority. “They would be crazy to reinstate the judicial filibuster, because as soon as the Democrats get the majority again, they’ll get rid of it again,” said Roger Pilon, director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

In the future the progressive socialists won’t be able to complain — they will anyway — because they were the ones who changed the rule and there shouldn’t be rules for Democrats and rules for Republicans, just one standard. Harry Reid has established that standard. Elections, as well as actions, do indeed have consequences.

Leave a Reply

43 Comments on "What do the late Michael Brown and the living Harry Reid have in common?"

avatar
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
loganrwa
Guest

If you think black and white is a beautiful combination .

AT~~BlacҞ White Hub.C/ o/ M ~~~~BEST

ONLîNE SîTE. Here is a serious onlịne black and whịte datịng sịte offering real and successful opportunities to meet your right person. Share your life and love with friends onlịne. When you truly love someone, age, distance,

height, and weight are just numbers. If you are sîngle, don’t wait any longer.xcbxcb

Jerry Heyman
Guest

I’m surprised that Harry Reid hasn’t already scheduled a vote during the lame duck to change it back – just so the new/old rule would apply under Republican majority. Then they would have a campaign issue if the Republicans were to reset it to where the Dems had moved the bar to.

Snap N McGarrett
Guest

They’ll do it and the media will applaud while we look at our TVs in utter disbelief, having been taken once again.

Houstongirl
Guest

Even if the Rs leave it where it is at 51, the Ds will have no problem persuading some RINOs to vote for Obama’s judicial or cabinet nominees. The fact is that Conservatives cannot rely on Republicans to protect and represent the American people any more than we can count on Dems. A sad situation for those of us who love our Constitution.

fred
Guest

We can still trust in our Constitution, we just need a Convention of States and throw all the FEDs to the dogs and let them find REAL jobs by imposing term limits and campaign finance reform that WE the People can live with, and a host of other regulations to keep these criminals out of our pockets!

Paul Sheridan
Guest

How is it protecting the Constitution to prevent the Executive branch from filling vacancies in the Judicial branch?

gjsmith_62
Guest

How is filling the judicial branch with Marxists protecting the Constitution?

Paul Sheridan
Guest

Where does it say anything about the ideology of judges in the constitution?

gjsmith_62
Guest

LOL, yes, the Constitution should be undermined by liars like Obama and you.

Paul Sheridan
Guest

What am I lying about?

gjsmith_62
Guest

You, being on the left, lie about the purpose of the Constitution, e.g., every issue is a federal one. Where are contraceptives mention in the Constitution? Abortion? Sheesh, or even cigarettes or milk?

Paul Sheridan
Guest

Okay but I didnt say anything about that so….

gjsmith_62
Guest

lol … what precisely is Griswold about?

Sheesh, keep lying.

Paul Sheridan
Guest

I guess I should clarify. For me Griswold is less about contraception specifically, and more about my state keeping its nose out of my private business. But I guess I did bring up contraception when I brought up Griswold. Not cigarettes or milk though. That was all you.

gjsmith_62
Guest

So, where are contraceptives mentioned in the Constitution?

Try to keep up.

Paul Sheridan
Guest
“The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance … Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers ‘in any house’ in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the ‘right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,… Read more »
gjsmith_62
Guest

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth [Amendment X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, if the power isn’t delineated to the Feds, it is reserved to the people or the states.
Get it? Probably not, you seek a totalitarian state and are a pig, just hoping not to be Snowball.

gjsmith_62
Guest
“penumbras” Aka, make it up as you go along. Aka, lying. Perhaps you should try re-reading the ninth and tenth. You idiots must make stuff up out of whole cloth to enshrine BS “rights” where none exist. I note quite amusingly, you FAILED to note where contraceptives were mentioned. IOW, you failed, as usual. The left merely creates pretexts where none exist to push an agenda that huge majorities of the nation oppose. You and Obama, liars and willfully either lying or being lied to, in your case you’re simply who Gruber was talking about, a “Stupid American voter”.
Paul Sheridan
Guest

So you agree with him that the state of Connecticut had the right to prohibit its citizens from buying or selling a particular good for no reason whatsoever? Did you agree with Bloomberg’s attempt to regulate soft drink sizes? They’re the same issue.

gjsmith_62
Guest

Neither is a Constitutional issue, get it?

Houstongirl
Guest

The Executive branch will be able to fill the vacancies. They will just need to vet their candidates so that they nominate people who value our Constitution, rather than their own agenda, and who will also appeal to the new Republican majority. Before you answer hastily, please know that I remember how Bork and Thomas were treated by Democrats.

Paul Sheridan
Guest

Well Thomas got onto the court anyway and Bork should never have been nominated. He didn’t believe in a constitutional right to privacy and thought the poll tax was just fine.
But this isn’t really about SCOTUS nominations. It’s about the republicans in the senate holding up every lower judicial nominee no matter how qualified unless they got what they wanted. And I don’t believe that’s what the framers had in mind when they drafted article II.

Houstongirl
Guest

Of course it will be about SCOTUS. You are naive to think otherwise. The other nominations are peripheral. And yes, the framers considered the ideology of the Court. And Bork not only should have been nominated, he should have been confirmed. Ted Kennedy, the scourge of all things decent. It was particularly amusing to watch the Lyin’ of the Senate speak harshly against the alleged sexual harassment of Anita Hill by Thomas. Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Paul Sheridan
Guest

The so-called “nuclear option” as it stands today only applies to non-SCOTUS nominations. That’s what the rule says.
Reagan should have known better than to nominate Bork, that guy was so far off the edge of conservatism that he was nearly a fascist.

gjsmith_62
Guest

“He didn’t believe in a constitutional right to privacy”

Really? Where did he advocate against the IV Amendment? Are warrants no longer needed?

Paul Sheridan
Guest

He literally said “there is no right to privacy in the constitution.” He thought the court went the wrong way in Griswold v. Connecticut. The only thing you were protected against was search and seizure not to have the government stay out of your damn business. Look it up.

gjsmith_62
Guest

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Please show how he disagreed with the above. Were there papers in between a copulating couple?

smitty195
Guest

You’re right. You are spot-on right. It’s so sad and it makes my stomach churn.

Gail.B.Haines
Guest

@usaok59:disqus

kayj1223
Guest

As far as the media goes, it doesn’t matter! The lame stream media will NEVER say anything good about the Republicans!!! If they do the “right” thing, no one will ever know!!! IMHO, of course!!!

citizen-unpc
Guest

Don’t change it. Let the Democrats eat their own dog food. But you know that they’ll be whining about it and making it look like the Republicans fault.

Paul Sheridan
Guest

Am I missing something? Obama is still the President for 2 more years. The nominees that the Senate is going to vote on for the next 2 years are all going to be his nominees. If McConnell and company leave the “nuclear option” in place it will just make it easier for Obama to get his nominees confirmed. All he’ll need is 51 votes out of the Senate and he’s already got 45 of them.

gjsmith_62
Guest

Perhaps you don’t know what a majority is? Who won that majority?

Oh, you’re a leftist, of course you’re “missing something”.

Paul Sheridan
Guest

Well I am just a dumb leftist but I took a lot of math in college. And I’m pretty sure 60 is more than 51.
I hope they leave it in place honestly. But sadly I don’t think Mitch McConnell is as dumb as you are.

gjsmith_62
Guest

Good, we can agree on one thing, McConnell should leave the nuclear option in place.

And 54 > 46
Idiot.

usaok59
Guest

I’m sick of always being the one to “play nice”. What does it get a person? No respect, hatred by racist people, libs running roughshod over “nice” people. They made their bed, let them lay in it.

gjsmith_62
Guest

How stupid is the GOP? They’re “fighting” with two hands tied behind their backs and Reid, Pelosi and Obama have brought a gun to a fist fight..

Louisiana Lady
Guest

After the Republican betrayal on the Cromnibus bill, I would expect them to do nothing to honor the will of the voters, who overwhelmingly rejected Obama’s agenda.

duif100
Guest

The answer appears to be rather simple:
Keep the 51 limit intact until the republicans loose the senate and then change it back to 60 in the time between the election in November and the new congress taking office.in January.

She Said It
Guest

Leave it alone for the same amount of time it benefited the Democrats, then change it back to how it should have stayed to begin with.

Eliott
Guest

These Republicans of late have shown they have no gonads so it would not surprise me to see them change it back. Aside from a few, they are giving Obama EVERYTHING he wants and he has made Boehner his bi*ch.

MotherBatherick
Guest

Dingy Harry has got to be asking himself one question, “Do I feel lucky?”
Well, do ya punk?

You Didit
Guest

It’s past time to tar and feather these politicians. Repeal the 17th Amendment which made Electing Senators a popularity contest with BIG money coming from everywhere. Also would help restore the 10th Amendment, Protects ‘States’ Rights’ .