The tactics of obstruction

Patrick, Advice and Consent, take 2 , Liberating Iraq (05ap15) on political tactics and their implications:

My question sparked some interesting comments… ON one point: All is fair in love, war, and politics. But there is difference between filibusters for legislation, which merely slows down change; and filibusters for nominees, which hamstrings another branch of Government if it is excessive. we are indeed in unchartered waters when Democrats decide to filibuster not a single nominee, but a whole group of judicial nominees. Which they’ve done. For example, the minority party could simply stonewall creation of a new administration. You can look to the current Iraq situation for a lesson there: It becomes difficult to reach a consensus above a majority level.

Beyond the filibuster itself is the whole policy approach of the Democrats towards turning judicial nominations into partisan battles based on ideological litmus tests. It is a further degeneration of judicial nominations that began with the “Borking” of Judge Robert Bork.

The problem is the Democrats are so addicted to getting their policies advanced via the courts instead of legislatures, they are willing to filibuster good judicial candidates who will restore the Judicial branch to its traditional – and correct – schema (interpreting the law and not creating law). The Democrats are wrong both in their tactics here – the filibuster should never be used as a blanket litmus test for nominees, but only in extreme cases; and they are wrong on the substance. They are opposing good judges precisely because they ‘threaten’ to be the right tonic for everything that is wrong with the courts today.

Democrats are using the phrase “abuse of power” to rationalize and excuse their behavior. They claim they are protecting the country and its government from unimaginable evils. The problem is that they have been outvoted. Their argument flies in the face of the fact that processes and policies that establish our government are still in force. Despite the many allegations, innuendo, and other trashing, there is no solid evidence that corruption and abuse of power in the government is not being handled in the usual and normal ways. The exception is in the tactics the Democrats are using to oppose the majority.

What they are claiming to prevent is what they are actually doing. An abuse of power is in the obstruction of the will of the majority when it is expressed in an agreed upon method. This is what the Democrats are doing.

The matters or loyalty and duty obligate citizens of the US to express their views for the purpose of educating others in hopes to swing them to similar viewpoints. But when the vote is taken and the decision made, the obligation is to accept that decision and own it. Destructive tactics do not educate, do not build, do not foster growth. The minority party is on a dangerous path because they are not trying to bring people to their point of view on issues and matters of public import. Instead, they are obstructing the will of the majority, denigrating the leadership of the country, and engaging in tactics and behavior that dimish and obfuscate rather than educate and clarify.

Comments are closed.