Quantcast
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. —THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1788

‘Checks and balances’ is now called ‘obstructionism’

‘Checks and balances’ is now called ‘obstructionism’

Supreme CourtIn 1936, shortly after his re-election, FDR had a strategy on how to deal with Supreme Court Judges who overturned aspects of his state-sovereignty-robbing New Deal legislation.

He decided to “pack the Supreme Court” with judges who would not consider his unconstitutional laws well, “unconstitutional.”

Franklin Delano Roosevelt introduced legislation that would put in one of his appointed justices for every judge already on the bench who was over the age of 70.

The plan was so unpopular that even FDR’s Vice President John Nance Garner,

“went back with him to Capitol Hill, stood in the well of the Senate and, as the plan was read aloud to the senators…held his nose and gestured thumbs down.”

Thankfully, FDR’s plan was ultimately rejected.

If you get nothing else from this article, I urge you to listen to FDR’s Fireside chat.

It is eerie.

FDR failed, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, by invoking the Nuclear Option last week, has succeeded in taking away the voice of the minority in the Senate, the voices that the people elected to represent them, paving the way for presidential appointees to get a swift confirmation, no matter how radical they are.

And Republican leadership is silent. In 2005, the Democrats were loud. Very loud.

This week, NPR reported,

“Back in 2005, Democrats told Frist they would shut down all Senate operations if he exercised the nuclear option.”

Today, the Democrats want you to think that there is an “unprecedented” level of “obstructionism.” But there is no more “obstruction” now than there was during the Bush years, or during any other time in history. With the mainstream media’s full support, the Democrats are effectively pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes.

What is different this time around is that the minority party is complicit in their silence.

This is not the point of this particular post, but the author did address it, inspired by a delicious rant by Mark Levin, at Tavern Keepers, which said in part,

“Mark Levin discussed their do-nothing tactic on his Friday (11/22) radio show. Levin said that because of the nuclear option, the courts will now be “flooded with radicals with lifetime appointments.” He said that President Obama is “ruling by executive fiat and bureaucratic regulations.” He said that “The GOP must take steps to blunt this lawlessness.”

But sadly, Levin is not optimistic. Citing a must-read article at National Review by Jonathan Strong, Levin notes that the GOP Leadership is so afraid to take pressure away from Democrats on the Obamacare fiasco, that they are not shouting loud enough over the nuclear option.”

Read how Mark Levin responded to the GOP’s concern. It will make you cheer.

2005 versus 2013

Back in 2005, then- GOP Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist tried to rationalize his consideration of the “nuclear option,” which ultimately never even came to a vote, by saying this:

“It is time for 100 senators to decide the issue of fair up-or-down votes for judicial nominees after over two years of unprecedented obstructionism.”

In 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said,

“…the United States Senate has wasted an unprecedented amount of time on procedural hurdles and partisan obstruction.”

In 2005, then-Senator Obama said,

“I am also aware that the Founding Fathers established the filibuster as a means of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority — and that protection, with some changes, has been in place for over 200 years.”

In 2013, President Obama said,

“But today’s pattern of obstruction, it just isn’t normal. It’s not what our founders envisioned.”

In 2005, Hillary Clinton said,

“…We have confirmed 95% of your nominees. And if you can’t get 60 votes for a nominee, perhaps you should think about who you are sending to us to be confirmed.”

In 2013, Senator Ron Johnson said,

“The vast majority, well in excess of 95 percent to 98 percent of his nominations, have been approved in a pretty expeditious basis.”

How about news coverage in 2005 versus 2013?

In 2005, the Center for American Progress wrote,

“As early as this week, a “nuclear option” could be invoked to remove the 200-year-old tradition of the Senate filibuster, the tool that empowers 41 or more senators to prevent a narrow majority from abusing its power. The filibuster is one of the only ways to encourage genuine bipartisan cooperation and compromise on important issues that come before the Senate.”

In 2013, the Center for American Progress wrote,

“Today’s vote to reform the Senate rules is a victory for the American people and an important step towards getting Washington back to work. Today’s targeted reforms come after years of unprecedented partisan obstruction by the same Republicans who shut down the government and repeatedly held our economy hostage.”

In 2005, the Star Tribune wrote,

As the Republicans in the U.S. Senate consider invoking the “nuclear option” of prohibiting filibusters on judicial candidates, a bit of Senate history might be in order. It shows that the arguments being marshaled against the filibuster are sheer sophistry….From the first days of the Senate, the principle of unlimited debate was the hallmark that set it apart from the House.

In 2013, the Star Tribune wrote (citing the AP),

“As Democrats watched Senate Republicans use filibuster powers to thwart more and more of President Barack Obama’s agenda and nominees, they wondered how much worse it could get. They finally reached a breaking point this past week when party leaders concluded that what they called GOP obstruction had made a mockery of American democracy.”

In 2005, NBC wrote,

“Frist, whom some in Washington think has presidential ambitions, has placed his credibility at stake by arguing so strongly in favor of giving every judicial nominee an up-or-down vote.”

In 2013, NBC wrote,

“Republicans are accusing Democrats of a “power grab” that’s bad for democracy, while Democrats are saying that they had no choice but to sideline the GOP lawmakers trying to gum up nominations out of spite.”

Not spite. Checks and balances.

If you are interested in reading more about FDR’s court-packing plan, Mark Levin wrote about it in his book, “Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America.”

Listen to FDR’s Fireside chat on his court-packing plan.

Follow Renee Nal on Twitter @ReneeNal and Facebook

Check out her news and political commentary on Tavern KeepersGather and the Examiner for news you won’t find in the mainstream media. Renee is also a guest blogger for the Shire Blog.

Renee Nal is a co-founder of TavernKeepers.com, a news and political commentary site founded by former Glenn Beck interns. She is also the National Conservative Examiner and a contributor for the Brenner Brief.

More by

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.
  • JoyO

    The sad thing about this is that by loading the 5th Circuit Federal Court with Progressive judges, they will rule in favor of the Statist regulations being put out by the EPA and other Federal agencies that are so devastating to our businesses and our national economy. Equally as important, there are a large number of cases relating to Obamacare expected to be heard by the Fifth Circuit Federal Court in the very near future — some of these could be very devastating to Obamacare if the court ruled against the government (e.g., the case focusing on the Originality Clause of the Constitution; the case where the Catholic Church, businesses and other religious groups are fighting the Constitutionality of the mandate that they pay for birth control pills and abortions in spite of the fact that it is counter to their religious beliefs; the case where the IRS is trying to say the Federal exchanges are eligible for subsidies when the Obamacare law clearly states that only people signing up for state exchanges, etc.)