Diary

Seven Reasons Erick Erickson Was Right

Republican apologists for [mc_name name=’Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’R000146′ ]’s Senate-destroying “nuclear option” have produced a lot of fog — but, when it comes to opposing Leftist Democratic judicial nominees, not much war.

So it was refreshing when, yesterday, Erick Erickson burst their tiny bubble and came out in opposition to confirming Supreme Court nominees in the Senate with 51 votes and without the possibility of a filibuster.

Basically, the “nuclear option” was an illegal parliamentary scheme invented by so-called “conservatives” om 2005, but executed [mc_name name=’Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’R000146′ ] in 2013 to change the Senate rules by fiat to allow the confirmation of judges with 51 votes.

The so-called “Republican” argument for making Reid’s parliamentary fraud scheme permanent is simple to understand — but also simpler to deflate than a Patriots football:  It is that Republicans need to adopt the nuclear option — and expand it to the Supreme Court — so they can “re-pack” the courts when they take over in 2017.

There are a bunch of problems with this flawed logic, but here are seven:

PROBLEM #1:  OBAMA IS STILL PRESIDENT.  If you expand the nuclear option to the Supreme Court — and Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires — you will guarantee an even-more-radical replacement who will be on the court for thirty years.  If either either Anthony Kennedy or Antonin Scalia retires (or dies), you will have lost the Supreme Court.  And the possibility of using the courts to assert constitutional principle may be gone for the remainder of our lifetime.  And this doesn’t even take into consideration that fact that conservatives may want to filibuster non-judicial Obama nominations, like Loretta Lynch or the nominee for ambassador to Cuba.

PROBLEM #2:  THE GOP MAY NOT WIN THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2017.  As a matter of fact, the current betting in this town is that it will not.  And, if it doesn’t, there’s almost a 100% chance that you’ve lost the courts (permanently).

PROBLEM #3:  IF THE GOP LEAVES THE CLOTURE THRESHOLD AT 51 AND [mc_name name=’Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’R000146′ ] (OR CHUCK SCHUMER) RETAKES THE SENATE, THE DEMOCRATS WILL CHANGE IT BACK TO 60 IF REPUBLICANS WIN THE WHITE HOUSE.

PROBLEM #4:  IF THE GOP ADOPTS (AND EXPANDS) THE NUCLEAR OPTION TO PROHIBIT JUDICIAL FILIBUSTERS, IT LAYS THE GROUNDWORK FOR AN ELIMINATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE FILIBUSTER.  And, if this happens, gun control, forced unionization, tax increases, amnesty, abortion-on-demand, same-sex marriage, pay equality, comprehensive environmental regulation, minimum wage hikes, and “election reform” are guaranteed.

PROBLEM #5:  IF THE GOP IS SO LACKING IN PRINCIPLE THAT IT’S WILLING TO JUMP IN BED WITH [mc_name name=’Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’R000146′ ], IT MIGHT AS WELL DO IT AFTER THE 2017 ELECTIONS, WHEN IT HAS DETERMINED THAT REPUBLICANS — AND NOT THE DEMOCRATS — WILL BENEFIT FROM ITS CORRUPTION.  You know, GOP, if you control the Senate and White House in 2017, you can always restore the 51-vote rule, so long as intellectual honesty is not an impediment to you.

PROBLEM #6:  BY EMBRACING THE “NUCLEAR OPTION” AFTER THEY WHINED ABOUT IT IN 2013, REPUBLICANS WOULD ADOPT THE SAME “ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS” PHILOSOPHY THAT ANIMATES BARACK OBAMA.  The “conservative” legal analysts’ change in attitude toward the “nuclear option” between 2013 and 2015 is not because the “nuclear option” has changed in that time.  It’s because of their changing perception of whether they would benefit or be hurt by it.  There’s a phrase for that:  “intellectual prostitution.”

PROBLEM #7:  THE “CONSERVATIVES” NOW EMBRACING THE “NUCLEAR OPTION” HAVE CONSISTENTLY SHOWN SUCH BAD JUDGMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO QUESTION THE WISDOM OF THEIR CURRENT MANIPULATIONS:  Particularly in the case of [mc_name name=’Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’H000338′ ], they sat complacently while Bill Clinton secured confirmation of loony libs like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and 9th Circuit nominees Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon.  Then they were somehow offended when Democrats wouldn’t reciprocate their complacency with respect to Bush judicial nominees.  These “conservatives” then crafted the “nuclear option” in 2005 to fraudulently change the Senate rules to push through Bush nominees.  But they ignored the possibility that Democrats would regain control of the Senate or the White House, and would use the GOP’s scheme against them.  (The former happened two years later; the later, four years later.)

So the “nuclear option conservatives” are like little children playing with dynamite (not knowing it would explode). They have already blown off their hands.  But they won’t be happy until they blow off their heads as well.

We are the fools if we allow them to do so.