Congress, the Hillary Clinton presidency, and the nuclear option
This post posits what is of course still a hypothetical: a Hillary Clinton presidency.
We don’t know that she will be elected. It is not impossible that Trump could win the whole thing. It is just highly unlikely, and I really don’t think it will happen. So I’m speculating on what I think will happen, knowing that the future is full of unknowns.
When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, one of the difficult things for conservatives was that he had a compliant Congress to do his bidding. The Republicans had done so very poorly that they didn’t even have the 41 votes necessary to stop liberal legislation in the Senate, although they finally gained exactly that number with the surprise election of Scott Brown of Massachusetts (although it couldn’t stop Obamacare because the Democrats used the technique of reconciliation to pass it).
However, despite what some people say, the Republicans in Congress were able to stop some of the Obama agenda after they gained the ability to muster at least 41 votes in the Senate, and after they gained the House in 2010. That’s why the Democrats in the Senate triggered the nuclear option for judicial appointments in November of 2013, when they still controlled both the presidency and the Senate but the Republicans had gained enough senators to block judicial confirmation under the old (non-nuclear) rules.
When the GOP took control of the Senate in 2014, the nuclear option ceased to make sense, because the GOP could now block Obama’s appointments without it (which they did for Obama’s attempt to put Garland on the Supreme Court). And it was not just Garland they stopped, either; there were others, but you don’t hear much about that from the people on the right whose self-appointed task it is to tear down the so-called GOPe as do-nothings.
A lot of people probably didn’t remember that the nuclear option had already been used that way by the Democrats in 2013 for judicial appointments (I barely remembered it myself, and I’m a blogger), but it had been. That’s why it should have been no surprise at all when Harry Reid mentioned recently that the next Senate will probably activate the nuclear option for judicial appointments, too. Most Americans who don’t follow the details of politics probably don’t pay attention to the ins and outs of this, but the bottom line is that the motivation to activate the nuclear option comes into play when a president and Senate are controlled by the same party, but the opposition party has more than 41 votes in the Senate.
That’s one of the reasons why which party controls Congress is exceedingly important, and why gridlock can be a good thing when a president whose agenda you distrust and/or fear has been elected. And that’s why the possibility of Trump’s negative coattails in 2016 looms large. If Hillary Clinton becomes the next president and the Democrats take control of the Senate with the GOP retaining more than 40 seats, that’s when the nuclear option for judicial appointments (the thing Reid is referring to) would once again come into play.
Recently Reid has only been talking about the using the nuclear option for judicial appointments rather than for votes on more general issues in the Senate, and there’s a reason for that. The reason (IMHO) is not that Reid and/or the Democrats in Congress would be so loathe to exercise their full power because they respect the institution of the Senate and its moderating traditions too much. The reason is that, without control of the House as well as the Senate and presidency, it wouldn’t do the Democrats much good to exercise the nuclear option for other things because normally legislation needs to be approved by both houses of Congress. And the reason the nuclear option for judicial appointments is tempting even when a party controls only the Senate and the presidency but does not control the House is that House approval is not needed for federal judicial appointments, which are confirmed by a vote in the Senate only.
That’s not rocket science, but it’s a bit complicated and requires a certain interest in politics to follow and understand, and it’s easy to forget some of the details. That’s one of the reasons it’s easy for people to get the wrong idea about what’s possible and what’s not possible in the interactions between Congress of one party and a president of another party. It also makes clear why the situation in which Hillary would be president and both houses of Congress would be in Democratic hands (similar to what occurred at the beginning of Obama’s first term in office) is to be very much feared.
My hunch is that if Hillary is elected president and the Democrats were to end up with majorities in both the Senate and the House (something I don’t think will happen, but which is important to prevent), there is a good chance that Democrats would invoke the nuclear option not just for judicial appointments, but more generally, in order to maximize Democratic power to do things without interference from the 40+ GOP senators. Those 40+ GOP senators would really be the only thing potentially standing in their way, except a Supreme Court that is highly unlikely to do oppose them. However, if the GOP retains the House (which is likely to do), the Democrats would probably retain the nuclear option for judicial appointments only, because on other issues the House would retain its ability to thwart the Democratic aims to a certain extent.
Of course, a President Clinton could do as Obama did—which was to go around Congress and use executive power as much as possible, and dare the GOP to stop him/her.
All of this just further drives home the fact that, whoever you choose to vote for at the top of the ticket, it is exceedingly important to go to the polls and vote for Republicans in Congress. And it also explains why Ted Cruz has been busy saying that a Republican Senate could and would continue to block any Hillary SCOTUS appointment, just as they did after 2014 with Obama.
In summary, assuming a President Clinton, it is of the utmost importance that the GOP holds the House, which it seems likely to do. But the Senate outlook is very iffy—so please make sure to vote and not stay home.
A nice summary of the recent history fo Congress under Obama. Like you, I get upset when people claim the GOP Congress has laid down for the President and let him walk all over them. Too many don’t realize or forget that Congress passed a bill to repeal Obamacare;
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/the-senate-finally-votes-to-repeal-obamacare/418644/
It was vetoed and died because there weren’t enough votes to override the veto.
I’m with you on this. The GOP Congress has tried to thwart the Obama policies, but because they are ethical, aw abiding, and have an aversion to conflict (mostly due to the fact that the MSM always paints them as the bad guys.), they have been only partially successful.
Even with a scant margin of one or two Senators and a healthy majority in the House (Which is what it looks like may occur.), they will still only be partially successful in stopping Hillary’s policies. That, of course is not to say that it is very important to vote GOP down ticket. Partial success is better than being steamrolled with the Dems in control of both houses.
How about this hypo? Hillary wins. The 33k deleted emails drop. Clear evidence of bribes and other criminal activity.
Then what?
For the past eight years, the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress have governed with absolutely no consideration for roughly half the population of the United States. What this has done is to alienate millions of Americans and leave them with the real sense that they are strangers in their own land. Good or bad, the Trump phenomenon is, in part, a result of this alienation.
There is no reason to believe, if Hillary were to be elected, that the Democrats would not continue to brazenly and arrogantly shove their agenda down the throats of an increasingly disaffected and dissatisfied segment of the electorate. Where this will all lead is anybody’s guess, but my money would be on the eventual dissolution of the United States as we now know it. How can fully half the population of a country continue to abide having no voice in their own affairs? That is what we have been dealing with during the Obama years. It can’t go on indefinitely without dire consequences. I am as frightened as I am angry – and I am very angry.
Informative. Good stuff.
“Good or bad, the Trump phenomenon is, in part, a result of this alienation.”
Which can appear to be a mighty peculiar thing if we think about it.
Dan Henniger’s Wonderland column (The Warren-Sanders Presidency) at WSJ also talks about how much Hillary would give into the left in all sorts of regulatory things. She has to be checked.
Cornhead: What’s your point? Naturally, after Hillary assumes office all the email stuff goes away for good.
Is that a surprise?
Re Highlander’s post about Trump: I have on several occasions tried to point out to liberals that this is part of what’s going on with the Trump phenomenon. The ones I know are having absolutely none of it. For them the story of the Obama years is that Republicans and their supporters have had no other motive than to thwart Obama, just because he’s black and they are so racist, hateful, and all-around bad, even if it means bringing down the whole country (which is what will happen if Democratic proposals aren’t implemented). Or for that matter destroying the planet, via climate change.
Now the words are being changed a bit: the only significant driving force of Republicans and their supporters is hatred of Hillary and general misogyny.
How can fully half the population of a country continue to abide having no voice in their own affairs?
Highlander: That reminds me of a tearful woman at my old liberal church going on about how terrible it was the anti-war movement had “no voice” against George W. Bush.
We don’t have no voice. We don’t have enough of a voice to change the direction of the country as we would like.
Conservatives like to blame the Democratic leadership as though the Dems were a small group who had executed a shadowy coup d’etat.
However, while the Dems do a lot of shadowy things, no doubt, they really have strong support among voters. Millions of liberal Americans find Republicans quite repugnant and vote against them.
It’s no fun to be on the losing side but here we are. Apparently putting a wacko vicious strongman on the ticket didn’t help. Who would have thought?
Highlander: “Where this will all lead is anybody’s guess, but my money would be on the eventual dissolution of the United States as we now know it. How can fully half the population of a country continue to abide having no voice in their own affairs? That is what we have been dealing with during the Obama years. It can’t go on indefinitely without dire consequences. I am as frightened as I am angry — and I am very angry.”
We have a chance every two years to get back or retain congress. It’s called voting. We all of voting age have a voice.
We have a voice. Need to vote smart and promote/elect good leaders (this was not done in 2016, to my deep regret).
Can we, for a few minutes, lose the dystopian hyperbole? Good grief Republicans have gotten hard to listen to these last few months. Nothing but doom and gloom – I’m saying it now, it’s worse than Global Warming hysteria.
Get out there and work, contend, vote, speak, convince. Don’t avoid talking to immigrants just because they’re immigrants (and all our leaders in “conservative” media have repeatedly told us they will always vote dem).
Don’t be a victim. We are not victims – we still live in the greatest country in the world. We all can vote – we have a voice.
I say this as someone who used to listen to it a lot – turn off talk radio. They have unmasked themselves as ratings whores who don’t really care about conservatism. Hannity, Rush, Ingraham, Coulter, most of Fox, the whole lot of them. I’m done with them.
“In summary, assuming a President Clinton, it is of the utmost importance that the GOP holds the House, which it seems likely to do. But the Senate outlook is very iffy–so please make sure to vote and not stay home.”
Your title of the article should be a call to action:
“Get off Your Duff and Vote – GOP Down Ticket! (whoever you want for president)”
“Cornhead: What’s your point? Naturally, after Hillary assumes office all the email stuff goes away for good.
Is that a surprise?” – huxley
That is one of the things that p*sses me off greatly about this lunatic trump debacle… clinton, in this world, will never face any accountability for the email server and many other of her actions.
“Good” does not always win the day.
Huxley,
There used to be something in government called compromise. A recognition that a narrow victory was not a mandate to implement a victorious party’s entire agenda without attempting to get buy in from the opposition with recognition of their support. That concept has been entirely abandoned by the Democrats over the years, reaching its culmination with Obama. They have politicized every aspect of government and weponized once independent agencies against their own people. Are we to accept these as the price of losing elections? My point is that something fundamental has changed and while winning elections has never been more important for our republic than now, I have less confidence than at any time in my life that it’s as simple as that.
Highlander: I’m sorry you have less confidence than ever. But you still have a voice.
The leftists are running the table now because they can and most of them feel it is the good and moral thing to do.
Republicans have not rolled over for it, as the Trump narrative goes, but we are fighting an uphill battle.
If there were more people voting our way as under Bush, not that long ago, it would be Democrats going on about having no voice.
But the pendulumn swings. I think it was swinging our way this year, but a lot of people blinded by their anger and despair jumped on board the Trump bandwagon to the delight of Democrats. And now things are going to get worse.
History is not a matter of straight-line extrapolations. You can count on change. And you can count on the Democrats overreaching.
We must bide our time, take care of ourselves, and be ready for opportunities.
Yes, we will still have a voice. Provided of course that we don’t engage in hate speech. Oh, hate speech laws are against the 1st amendment you say. That’s what UN treaties are for, as the Constitution clearly states that treaties supersede Constitutional provisions.
And a leftist court can always rule that hate speech laws do NOT violate the 1st amendment. Ala the Roberts court ruling that ObamaCare’s mandated penalty is a ‘tax’. So in the future, forget speaking any truth that contradicts the narrative.
Of course, our voices will be repressed with Internet censorship coming. And 25 million ‘new’ voters will make actually having a say in governance a thing of the past. But we will still have our soapboxes. Even though they be politically correct soapboxes.
Consent of the governed disappears when +51% for all intents and purposes denies -49% meaningful participation. It literally fulfills the condition of being taxed and ruled over without representation.
Lou Dobbs: some staggering statistics —
http://710wor.iheart.com/onair/mark-simone-52176/watch-lou-dobbs-with-some-incredible-15243637/
If you think Trump is the nominee because he’s who a majority or even large minority of republicans wanted, you just haven’t been paying attention. He’s in because strong conservatives refused to compromise on a moderate again after 2 losses in a row with them. Add to that the fact that moderates refused to compromise on a strong conservative and you have Trump, the only one left standing.
Of course you need to add to Trump’s vote with the media and crossover democrats supplying enough to keep him upright.
Once he was the last one standing then most strong conservatives said at least he’s not a moderate, and decided to get on board. Unfortunately he scares moderates the most because he is definitely not one of them, for lots of reasons. So they’re not on board.
That’s why, if he loses, the party will split probably permanently with conservatives blaming moderates and vice versa.
How did we get here? Look at the performance of congress compared to their promises if only they were made the majority in both houses.
Conservatives feel betrayed by omnibus spending bills over and over again. At a minimum they could have passed individual bills for different departments with nuanced reductions. They didn’t try anything. They just complained that they were powerless without the presidency.
They didn’t say that when they were running. They promised gold mine and gave us the shaft.
If you think Trump is the nominee because he’s who a majority or even large minority of republicans wanted, you just haven’t been paying attention.
Irv G: And if you think anyone here is arguing that, you are definitely not paying attention.
And that’s the problem with Trump supporters, i.e. people who support Trump, most of them don’t pay attention to what their opponents say.
They just reboot and repeat the same arguments all over again, hoping it will somehow be different this time.
For me, it’s exactly like talking to people on the left.
Irv Greenberg Says:
“…because strong conservatives refused to compromise on a moderate again after 2 losses in a row with them. Add to that the fact that moderates refused to compromise on a strong conservative and you have Trump”
When you’re dealing with the Marxist ideology, “moderation” and “compromise” are for them only partial pauses, slow walks toward totalitarianism.
A labor leader said a long time ago, “collective bargaining is a give-and-take process – you give and we take.” There is never each side giving a little in a “compromise” between “moderates” and Marxists, the left may temporarily settle in any given battle by taking somewhat less from us in liberty and treasure than the whole pie, because they don’t have the power…yet…to take it all. They never give up what they already have, only we do, over and over and over again, every time our “moderates” “compromise” with them. These moderates are never willing to fight to claw back the freedoms and monies we have already surrendered.
This process is inexorable and interminable and attacks freedom in all possible arenas from all directions: political, cultural, judicial, educational, financial, regulatory, nibbling away at the edges of our constitutional governance and our way of life in ever larger chunks until we’re backed into a corner as we are now.
The Constitution was specifically designed to deter the centralization of power, because the DWEMs (Dead White Euro Males) were wise enough to understand that road only leads to tyranny, towards which we fast approaching. If you’re not a strong constitutional and cultural conservative, then you’re just dickering over the speed and methods by which we rush to 1984.
The thing about those “DWEMs” is that they set up a system and a set of rules, which ultimately oblige us to win power largely through persuasion.
But, if we think nobody but OWEMs (Other WEMs) are persuadable, or could be, we’ve already lost a key part of the meaning of what they set up, and the means to shape our government.
As I see people wrestling with this quandry they’ve placed themselves in, they are the first to compromise on their principles to back someone who gives all kinds of indications that he’d operate and deliver things opposite what these same people claim they want.
Instead, it rather looks like they want to instill their own will on those with whom they disagree, with trump as their proxy, rather than doing the “hard work” of convincing others.