Win the Battle, Lose the War?

Personally, I applaud the appointment of Neil Gorsuch. However, I do NOT commend or applaud the Legislative decision and process that brought him to his seat on the Supreme Court.
We in the conservative ranks may feel as if we have won that “battle.” But I worry now about the long-term “war.” We would do well to remember that there was much wisdom in the crafting of the Constitution and the formal rules that governed much of the decision-making in our nation for generations. Deliberation and disagreement in politics is NOT the enemy. Rather, it is our best friend in the fight for freedom. Our Founders went to great lengths to protect the minority opinion from what they called the “tyranny of the majority.”
On Friday, the Senate leadership willingly chose to make 50%+1 the law of the land for Supreme Court appointments. Now, in this instance, what matters not is who started this whole process. (Some would say Harry Reid as it relates to this specific case. But this partisan polarization has gone back for decades and there is sufficient guilt on both sides of the aisle.) Casting blame and pointing fingers may temporarily assuage the soul, but Friday’s choice to go “nuclear” will come back to bite the conservative cause in the end. The day will come when we will once again find ourselves in the minority. Honestly, it might be as soon as 2018. And now, when that hour arises, there will be no mechanism left to temper the passions of truly liberal or even progressive agendas. In our zeal to push forward our own ideology we may well have hurt OURSELVES the most in the long run. I hope that is not the case. I pray that is not the case. But if such a time comes, we will have no one to blame but ourselves. The honest truth is that when we fail to protect the freedom and liberty of ALL, especially those with whom we disagree, we ultimately and eventually forfeit our own freedoms. #WeThePeople

3 thoughts on “Win the Battle, Lose the War?

Add yours

  1. Changing the rules to confirm Gorsuch in my opinion was the right call. He will be on the court for years and hopefully be ruling to uphold the Constitution. It would make no difference to Democrats if the rules were not changed this go round, they would not hesitate to change them when they are back in the majority. Correct me if I’m wrong but the Constitution says Supreme Court appointments need only advice and consent of the Senate, not 3/5 or super majority. The rules change is to stop a filibuster.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Ray!!! How are you? Hope you and the family are doing well. If the Republican leadership was fully intent on securing Gorsuch, than, yes, they had no other option. Once it became clear that the Democrats were going to use the filibuster, the only other option would have been to start all over with another candidate (unless they were able to bring some of the Democrats across the aisle). The filibuster has always been an option but there was a sort of “gentlemen’s agreement” when it came to Supreme Court appointees in decades. Presidents tended to nominate individuals that could win votes from across the aisle. The Senate would then approve the candidate even if they had less than 60 votes. Unfortunately, the polarization that so strongly characterizes the political world today has spilled over into the appointment process. If you will remember, the Republicans refused to even allow Obama’s selection a hearing. This current obstinacy is not new or unique to Democrats. Both sides understand the critical importance of the Court in this current environment. The tragedy here, at least to me, is that without the filibuster in place, future presidents will no longer be inclined to seek more centrist or moderate judges. They can simply count the votes in advance and appoint as conservative or liberal a judge as they prefer, knowing that 51 votes is now sufficient to secure their nominee’s seat. So, imagine a future scenario in which the “opposition” party has control of the Oval Office and the Congress. The Court can now be easily stacked according to the personal philosophy and political ideology of the President. I have always been hesitant with regard to changing “rules” just to get a temporary win. Those types of moves seldom produce the lasting or long-term results that we really and truly want. Speaking for myself, I feel we are better served to sit down together and find a solution that represents not only the interests of the “present majority” but also protects the rights of the “current minority.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: