A Gaffe That Will Be Hard For Schumer To Live Down

 

During his first days as the Senate Majority Leader, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), preened over his newfound power to set the agenda.  But Schumer's smarmy remarks about the snap Second Impeachment of Donald Trump will be hard to live down.

 

 Smooth move Chuck. Are you vying to replace President Biden as a walking gaffe machine?

Considering the Consequence of the Snap Second Trump Impeachment

 

On January 13th, 2021, the US House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald J. Trump for a second time in a mostly party line vote 232 to 197 (with ten Republican voting aye).  This second Snap Impeachment in H. Res. 24 (117th Congress)  was on a single charge of “Incitement of Insurrection”, predicated on remarks made at a political rally at the Ellipse on January 6th, 2021 as Congress was set to certify the Electoral College results for the Presidential Election.   

After certification of the November 3rd election results, President Trump’s term ends on January 20th, meaning that the snap Impeachment, which only acts as a judicial equivalent of an indictment, was in the last seven days of President Trump’s term of office.  The Senate was not scheduled be in session until January 19th and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was unwilling to convene in emergency session, so the earliest that the Senate could take up an Article of Impeachment (presuming that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promptly send it over this time) is 1 p.m. on January 20th, one hour after newly inaugurated President Joe Biden takes his oath of office. 

Any astute political observers understand that this Second Impeachment was not meant to evict Mr. Trump out of the Oval Office but to besmirch his place in history and seek him from exercising any political power after January 20th.  Unfortunately, this political stunt has some serious repercussions for the polity, the rule of law and even the Constitution.

Firstly, there was a rush to remove President Trump.  When the Capitol Siege occurred on January 6th, Trump was only going to be in office for less than two weeks.  When the Snap Impeachment was passed, the 45th President would leave office in seven days. But that perspective only looks towards part of the consequences and not the cause.  Facts about the violence on Capitol Hill have been fluid.  Vital questions such as who were the instigators of the insurrection and why a couple hundred agitators were allowed inside the Capitol.  Thus is seems unwise to rush to judgment, but that did not deter Nancy Pelosi’s drive to impeach Trump again.

A day before the Impeachment vote in the House, the House passed a Resolution (on a purely party line vote) which implored Vice President Pence and the Trump Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment, which would (temporarily) remove President Trump and make Pence Acting President pending Congressional assent.   The 25th Amendment was intended for instances when the Chief Executive was incapacitated, not for policy disagreements or “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. 

 The proper Congressional role in the 25th Amendment is to ratify the Acting President, not to instigate his or her installation.  This Resolution abrogates the Separation of Powers, namely having part of the Legislative Branch leveraging the Vice President with a threat of an Impeachment vote unless Mr. Pence invoked the 25th Amendment.  That kind of sounds like Speaker Pelosi was drunk on power for countenancing that Constitutional breach. 

The Snap Impeachment of 2021 was done at super speed in less than seven days from the Capitol Siege to passing the Article of Impeachment.  The charge “Inciting an Insurrection” is a serious charge, verging on treason, thus one might try to justify an accelerated procedure.  But it that were the case, then why didn’t the House stay in session to actuate the Impeachment.  Instead, the House took the weekend off. The Impeachment was delayed by a voice vote on Monday January 11th rejecting the 25th Amendment Resolution and then passage of the unconstitutional 25th Amendment Resolution on January 12th before proceeding to the Snap Impeachment on January 13th.

 In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee labored seven months drafting the first Article of Impeachment against President Richard Nixon (who resigned before any final Congressional vote). The Impeachment process of President Bill Clinton lasted four months.  Even President Trump’s first Impeachment took three months.  Yet, the slim Democrat majority in the House lead by Speaker Nancy Pelosi managed to pass an Article of Impeachment with three HOURS of floor “debate” and no committee work. 

Unlike in the Impeachment of 2020 when some of President Trump’s staff were allowed to offer some positive input, there was no fact finding or committee hearings before the Impeachment Debate. So the Snap Impeachment ignored precedent.

 It can be argued that an impeachment is like an indictment. Some cynically say that a Prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich with a Grand Jury, as the defendant is not entitled to counsel in that forum.  

But at least in a Grand Jury there is fact presentation rather than ramrodding a predetermined outcome. No fact finding and just a three our debate?  So much for Due Process.

Part of the animus against President Trump is for his brusque manner which agitates people.  The Article of Impeachment which passed cited “Inciting an Insurrection” and pointed to Mr. Trump’s rhetoric as part of the charge.  With that in mind, it was curious that the rules for debate on the 25th Amendment and Impeachment resolution lifted decorum prohibitions.  This allowed members like freshman Representative Cori Bush (D-MO 1st) slanderously referred to the gathering on the Ellipse to the White Supremicist-in-chief addressing White Supremicists (sic).  Not surprisingly, this comes from the same Member who proposed expelling any Congressmen who voted against certifying electors (N.B. bill was dropped on January 5th, the day before the ruckus). With actions and language like Rep. Bush, one wonders who is inciting unrest.

One of the things that were done on the first day of the 117th Congress was rules in the House which barred Members from using gender specific language in legislative business.  Yet when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 12th) gave a rare floor speech in favor of the snap Impeachment, she proclaimed  “I stand before you as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter, a daughter...” 

Guess that rules are only intended to be applied for peasants or the opposition, even silly ones.

Even though the Snap Impeachment was done in an expedited fashion, it was not immediately walked over to the Senate.  While Impeachment Managers were named, including Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA 15th) who was recently exposed as having involvement with Chinese spy Fang Fang, the Article was not conveyed to the Upper Chamber for trial. It is unclear when Speaker Pelosi will send over the Article of Impeachment.  For the 2020 Impeachment, Pelosi held the Articles of Impeachment for a month before sending them to the Senate.  So much for a supposed clear and present danger.

With these facts in mind, it is reasonable to conclude that essentially this was not a second impeachment of  impeachment of Donald Trump but more of a show trial, Soviet style which gave the illusion of some system of justice but had a predetermined outcome dictated by the ruling House legislative majority.  Aside from exercising its rightful impeachment power, there were attempts at Congressional dominance over the Executive branch and eschewed principles of due process which have influenced America’s common law heritage. 

But that is only considering the ramifications from one chamber of Congress.  The Senate is where the Impeachment Trial occurs.  This will be made complicated due to timing.  Again, it is unclear when the Article of Impeachment will be transmitted.  If the House Majority truly wanted to eject President Trump from office, it would be immediately sent. The snag with that is the Constitution requires that the Senate immediately take up the Impeachment and can conduct no other legislative business.

The Senate is not scheduled to reconvene until January 19th, and won’t be put into emergency session sooner.  Current Senate Majority Leader McConnell is circulating a draft rule which requires unanimous consent to doing business aside from Impeachment. It is improbable that in such a contentious environment that all 100 Senators grant such a deviation from customary procedure.  So when the Impeachment Article is conveyed, it will dominate Senate business. 

It is conceivable that if House Impeachment Managers present themselves with House Res. 24 to the Senate on January 19th, that McConnell could press the Senate to immediately consider a Motion to Dismiss which could pass by simple majority vote.  Looking at it politically, Democrats can crow that Trump was impeached twice and Republicans are forced to indicate if they still support a besmirched President Trump.  But it is unclear if the Republican caucus in the Senate could hold firm to dismiss. If it is a razor thin vote, it might require current Vice President Mike Pence to break the tie.  If the motion fails, then the Senate would immediately be broiled into an Impeachment trial.

When the inauguration occurs on January 20th, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) will become Vice President and surrender her seat in the Senate, but constitutionally she will become President of the Senate.  This role will allow her to break tie votes, which will be crucial in a 50–50 split Senate, thereby giving Democrats the majority.  This means that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) becomes Senate Majority Leader and will call the tunes for the Impeachment trial, but changing the operational rules again could be a sticking point.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC 6th) has suggested that the Impeachment trial be delayed to give President Biden his 100 day honeymoon.  That won’t be possible if the House rushes the Article of Impeachment, but that is unlikely.  Presuming the Impeachment is held until May, it will hang over the new President’s head and may well force involvement, either to allay the situation or verbally stumble into taking a stance.

There is a significant Constitutional question as to the propriety of the Impeachment of a President after he or she has left office.  Impeachment is a process in which the legislature brings charges against a civil officer of the government.  Well, after Noon on January 20th 2021, Donald Trump becomes a private citizen again.  It is moot as to whether it would be proper for the Senate to try a private citizen.  Prominent contemporary legal scholars like Cass Sunstein, Alan Dershewitz and Jonathan Turley argue against impeachment of an ex President.  But there is a little historical precedence for it. 

In 1876, there is the example of Secretary of War William Belknap who was investigated by the House for corruption.  But minutes before the Impeachment occurred, Belknap submitted his resignation to President Ulysses S. Grant.  However, the House impeached him anyways and the Senate tried him but failed to get the 2/3ds majority. This issue is not clear cut and would probably prompt judicial consideration which will likely be rejected as a political issue. Then again, it might force Chief Justice John Roberts to consider a difficult issue while proceeding over a Senate trial.

 Why would Democrats go through all of the trouble to impeach a President who was essentially a short timer anyways?  Aside from trying to blot out a Trump presidency either with black marks or essentially cancel him, it would seem that they are scared about his future viability.  Post Presidency Impeachment may not be able to remove Trump but would also barr him from ever holding federal office again.  Considering the 74 million plus supporters who seem undeterred by bad press or even a snap impeachment, Democrats do not want strong opposition in 2024 to a weak Biden Administration featuring Kamala Harris.  Some establishment Republicans would feel safer if the Populist America First movement goes away with Donald Trump. Thus they might encourage impeachment to dampen his pull on the party and they can continue unimpeded in their quintessential District of Calamity (sic) cocktail party.

There is a practical political consideration about a Senate Impeachment trial.  Namely, are there the votes?  Unlike procedural issues, the Senate is required by the Constitution to garner a 2/3rds majority to succeed.  While there may be a few Republicans who despise Trump enough to vote for Impeachment, it would be hard to win 17 GOP votes. Even if Senate Democrats abolish the filibuster and push through Puerto Rican and Douglass Commonwealth (a.k.a. DC)  statehood, they would still have to sway 15 Republicans.

Turncoat Republicans had better hope for success, because an enraged and engaged MAGA wing will primary those who vote for a snap impeachment of Donald Trump.

Then there are the procedural problems with Trump’s second impeachment.  There is only one Article, and that cites “Inciting an Insurrection”. Aside from the plain language of Trump’s Ellipse speech which never incited his audience, it can be shown that trouble was occurring 1 ½ miles away on Capitol Hill before the President finished his speech.  Furthermore, facts from the FBI and mainstream media sources reveal that some agitators who have radical BLM and Antifa connections had been planning for trouble prior to the Capitol Siege.  This information will have to be fleshed out in a fair trial.

Moreover, the Resolution’s language points to Trump’s citation of false information about winning the election. Of course, all Americans (even a President) have the Freedom of Speech, even if it is demonstrably wrong. But by citing Trump's prior speeches and claims, that opens the door for Trump’s defense team to further expose and substantiate all of the election irregularities that state courts, Article III courts and the Supreme Court declined to hear on their cases merits.   That may take a long time and could upset the apple cart about the 2020 elections, further throwing doubt into the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency.  

Then there is the matter of Big Tech.  Social Media giants like Twitter and Facebook censored President Trump when questioning the election.  To add injury to insult (sic), these Social Media Cyber Nannies banned President Trump from even making statements to tell his supporters to go home peacefully.  That may open the door to expose collusion amongst internet companies in Election 2020.  

As the Article of Impeachment proof texts Trump’s remarks to find the most inflammatory takes, context might examine social media’s role in the matter.  That avenue of defense open the door to expose collusion amongst internet companies in Election 2020. If incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer resists allowing the Trump team a vigorous defense, it will become clear that it is a show trial worthy of a Soviet state or a banana republic (not the kind selling safari clothing).

Since the first FDR term, Presidents have been historically measured by their accomplishments during their honeymoon period (i.e. the first 100 days).  If the second Trump impeachment goes to a real Senate trial, it will overshadow everything.  Thus the Biden honeymood will be like looking at a postcard of Niagra Falls and wondering: "If only..."

However, if some wild cards come up during the trial, such as obvious election fraud or collusion, some may prefer visit Niagra Falls over a barrel, with or without Dr. Jill.

Just as the Biden campaign was not about him but all about Donald Trump, the second impeachment trial of Trump may well overshadow the early Biden presidency.  While the will to get Trump might be widely held among Democrats (and some establishment Republicans), actuating this animus may well impede the ambitions of “The Great Reset”.

On Behind the Lines Flanks From the Left

Two term Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) reluctantly announced his re-election effort for the 2018 election cycle. His candidacy is the strongest of the nine Democrat incumbents who are defending in states which voted for President Donald Trump.  But Machin's blunt talk to fellow Democrats reveals a rift in the Democrat party.  Manchin will likely have a challenger from the left, coming from the "Feel the Bern" wing of the party.

Even Democrats in the leadership are at risk from flanks from the left.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who was the face of the "Schumer Shutdown" supposedly to advance the DACA Deal, had protests staged around his residence by leftists who thought the Democrats wimped out for only having a three day government shutdown. These are indications that the far left is asserting its authority over the Democrat Party and it is not just centrists like Senator Manchin who will be scorned if they do not dance their progressive tarantella. 

On Illegal Immigration and the Schumer Shutdown

Some on the Schumer Shutdown

Does Hope for "A Better Deal" Scuttle Bipartisan Budgetary Cooperation?

Chuck Schumer Sends a Message about the Trump Presidency

Schumer's critique might be more credible if the Democrats did not slow roll nearly everything from the 45th President in the Senate. It is understandable that Democrats vote in lock-step for them on legislation, but demanding full debate on each and every Presidential appointee is the politics of obstruction.  Moreover, prior to the Inauguration, Schumer expressed willingness to work with the Trump Administration only if he abandoned all of his Republican colleagues, which Mr. Trump has not yet been willing to do.

But Chuck Schumer's tears may make a tasty mocktail in the West Wing and makes for compelling copy during friendly questioning with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press.

Chuck Schumer on American Symbols

Sen. Schumer Berates President Trump as Diplomatic 98 Lb. Weakling

Senator Schumer's contemptuous snap  seemed  well positioned for President Trump's meeting with President Xi at Mar-a-Lago.  

However, after the Tomahawk missile attack in Syria in response to the gassing of civilians, the Senate Democrat Minority Leaders Charles Atlas insult seems pretty weak.

Rep. Trey Gowdy Galled by "Dutch Uncle" Chuck Schumer's Modest Proposals

The Resistance plan for Democrats in the District of Calamity seems to be the Soros inspired discredit your opponents to dictate the political agenda.  

While talk about the impeachment of President Trump has temporarily waned among most elected officials, there is a full court press to besmirch Trump advisers and allies in Washington by implicating them as untrustworthy due to the supposed Russian interference with the 2012 General Election of Mr. Trump.  Currently, this is culminating on a call for and independent counsel to investigate the charges which intelligence chiefs have already dismissed.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) took the lead in casting doubt about House Intelligence Select Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-CA 22), who went to the White House to brief the Administration there was incidental surveillance of the Trump family and Trump transition staff and American names had been improperly unmasked and leaked.  Schumer was upset that Intelligence Chairman Nunes did not go to his Democrat Intelligence Minority Leader Adam Schiff (D-CA 28th) first, thus the accusation that Nunes is in the pocket of President Trump and must step aside.

Congressman Trey Gowdy  dismissed the disparagement of Chairman Nunes by "Dutch Uncle Chuck Schumer with prejudice. 

Of course, Senator Schumer has not been subtle about being an obstructionist to the Trump Administration unless the President totally accedes to Democrat druthers. 

Sen. Patrick Leahy on the Proposed Gorsuch Filibuster

Even though Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has reiterated his intent to invoke a filibuster on the cloture vote for President Trump's Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, not all of his colleagues are on board.  Veteran Senator Patrick Leahy, who offered vigorous invigilation during Gorsuch's Senate Judiciary Committee appearance, indicated that he is not inclined to filibuster the nominee.

Schumer's intransigence is no surprise, as he requires President Trump to abandon his Republican colleagues to gain his support. But perhaps Leahy recognizes that Senate Democrats lack the ability to ultimately block Gorsuch's eventual ascent to the High Court.  Or maybe the long time member of the world's oldest deliberative body frets that blocking the cloture vote would inspire Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to "go nuclear" and extend the Reid Rule's application to Advice and Consent for Supreme Court nominees.  

Primary Concerns for Democrats Supporting Gorsuch Cloture Vote

Now that they are relegated to minority political status in the District of Calamity, the progressive wing of the Democrat party feel free to impose purity tests and try to effectively take over the party.

One of the litmus tests for a Senate Democrat to show their loyalty towards liberalism is to oppose President Trump's choice for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch.  

Senate Democrats may stew over a "stolen" SCOTUS pick, because the Senate Majority in the 114th Congress refused to hold hearings and scuttled former President Obama's lame duck Supreme Court pick Merrick Garland. This Senate Advice and Consent through inaction followed a 70 year precedent of not confirming SCOTUS picks in the last year of an Administration so as to let voters decide.

However some Democrats are so obstreperous that they will not meet with Judge Gorsuch, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).  Those who consented to meet Judge Gorsuch have been charmed by him and his impeccable legal credentials.

Liberal advocacy groups like Credo Action felt emboldened by Schumer's antipathy approach thus they warned wavering Senate Democrats that if they so much even consented to a Cloture vote for Judge Gorsuch that they will face primary opposition in the 2018 cycle.

So Democrats opposed Republicans effectively filibustering Garland through a no vote yet they want to do the same thing to Judge Gorsuch.  As Chris Plante is wont to say, if it wasn't for double standards, liberals would not have any at all.  Ironically, filibustering will be futile thanks to the legacy of  former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who invoked the nuclear option in 2013.  Now all the current Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) needs to do is expand the rule change in medias res to include Supreme Court nominations. 

From an objective standpoint, Democrats threatening to primary vulnerable Senate Democrats to just allow a vote for a Supreme Court Associate Justice seems counter-intuitive.  The Scalia replacement would not drastically change the balance of the court, so why come out with guns blazing against your own for a goal which is note a game changer.  

Although Democrats only need to garner three net seats to regain control of the Senate, they face a tough election cycle in 2018 with 23 of 33 seats up.  Incumbents have a much easier time fund raising and winning general elections, so why take out your own (even if they stray from the party line on some issues)?  Furthermore, ten of the Senate races are Democrats in states that voted strongly for President Trump.  Threatening to primary Democrat incumbents pushes them further to the left, which was not were the vox populi seems to be in those states.

If opposition from the left seems too strident, some incumbents like Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)  might conclude that the grass is greener on the other side of the aisle. Even if they do not politically defect, they may be emboldened to vote their conscience to keep their integrity or burnish their independence from a progressive purge to keep their seat.

It would seem prudent for progressives to not play hardball on this Supreme Court nomination but fight like hell if a senior liberal Associate Justice (like 83 year old Ruth Ginsburg or 78 year old Stephen Breyer) or majority maker 80 year old Anthony Kennedy decided to retire.  But it seems that progressives do not want to leave any powder in reserve for such a contingency.  

Even though objections to the Scalia replacement were packaged as being objections to Garland's no vote or automatically opposing President Trump's pick, it seems that progressives are concerned that reversing Roe v. Wade and throwing the adjudication of abortion back to the states is at stake. 

Chuck Schumer Supposes Significant GOP Dissent on Trump

Ben Sasse Anticipates Democrats' Knee Jerk Opposition Against Trump's SCOTUS Choice

Isn't it amazing how the "spontaneous" made for TV  crowd had pre-printed signs with Trump's Supreme Court pick Neil Gorsuch pre-printed on it.  Much like the astroturf, anticipating Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) would demonize the newly named nominee.

Keeping in character, Senator Schumer's statement about Neil Gorsuch paints the Trump High Court nominee as a neanderthal who is beholden to the President:

“Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly sided with corporations over working people, demonstrated a hostility toward women’s rights, and most troubling, hewed to an ideological approach to jurisprudence that makes me skeptical that he can be a strong, independent Justice on the Court."  

Smart SCOTUS Oppo Strategerie (sic)

As sagacious of a strategist Committee for Justice President Curt Levey may be, it seems that Democrats in the District of Calamity have taken a different tact.

Senator Jeff Merkely (D-OR) has declared that there must be payback for the 114th Congress not approving lame duck former President Obama's pick of Merrick  Garland.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer )D-NY) has declared that he will not work with President Trump unless he utterly does the Democrats' bidding.

In years past, protestations of non-cooperation might have caused Senate Republicans to buckle and moderate.  But thanks to former Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Reid Rule, cooperation for cloture on appointments is now moot.

Democrats may bluster that only needing a majority was not intended to be for Supreme Court nominees, but that is after the fact dicta.  Per Hugh Hewitt and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), the Reid Rule is about the Senate only requiring a majority to change the rules mid-session. Besides, Reid himself intimated that he showed his Democrat Senate colleagues how to steamroll the GOP with this rule, even for High Court picks Even liberal Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) admits that the filibuster is no longer an emergency brake on nominations.

Under normal circumstances, a newly elected President has little opposition to his first Supreme Court nominee, especially early in his first term.  But these are not ordinary times.  Democrats are wont to hyperventilate about anything that the Trump Administration does, and seem happy to escalate any altercation to the extreme.  Democrats have sought to slow walk Trump Administration confirmation hearings, going so far as to not show up at Senate Committee Hearing votes.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been chary to confirm that Republicans will invoke what was once called "the nuclear option", but he has been steadfast in assuring the public that Trump Administration will be confirmed.  The same is true regarding  President  Trump's pick for the Supreme Court.

The danger that Democrats have in protesting so vehemently to everything in the early Trump Administration and calling supporters out to the ramparts is three fold.

 First, they risk over-exhausting their partisans.  You can only cry "the sky is falling" only so often before it loses its desired effect.

Secondly, Democrats are not picking their battles wisely.  It is not only the incoherence of opposing everything, but in going to the mat for losing causes.  Because of the Reid Rule, President Trump will get his Cabinet appointments and most likely the first Supreme Court pick.  By fighting so hard on the nominations, it may serve to demoralize their partisans.

Thirdly, the hyperventilating opposition may play well for the progressive base of the Democrat Party but it may serve to alienate white, working class Democrats who voted for Trump in 2016 on positions and personnel with which they agree.

Historically, Democrats do not turn out in mid-term elections.  In the 2018 election cycle, Democrats have 23 seats up in the Senate, including in states which voted for Trump.  Such strident opposition, epitomized by an obstructionist approach to Trump's first Supreme Court pick (even before he is announced) may solidify a one time "what have you got to lose" vote to a realigning "my party has left me" metanoia, thereby making  Blue Dogs and DC Democrats politically endangered species. 

The Legacy of Dirty Harry and the Reid Rule on Senate Filibusters

A legacy of former Senate Majority Leader  Harry Reid (D-NV) was the effective elimination of the confirmation filibuster.  

Under the Constitution, it is the Senate's duty to confirm Executive and Judicial Branch appointments.  Senate rules allowed for confirmations with mere majorities, but needed to obtain 60 votes to cut off debate (Cloture) and preclude a filibuster.  The Cloture vote was intended to prevent endless obstructionism while still giving the minority some say in the proceedings of the Upper Chamber of Congress.

Needing to get enough votes for cloture was an incentive for Republicans to select more moderate appointees which required Senate consent.  But such Senate niceties stopped political steamrolling by Majorities who wished to exercise their unadulterated will.

When the Obama Administration sought to pack the Court of Appeals for DC (aka the DC Circuit), which is the court of authority for regulatory bodies, it ran into trouble when its candidates might not have received the requisite support for a Cloture Vote.  So then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, exercised "The Nuclear Option".  Exercising the Nuclear Option had been hotly debated in the preceding decade, but then Senate Majority Leader  Bill Frist (R-TN) opted not to circumvent tradition. 

Through Parliamentary legerdemain, Reid established a precedent in which he said that all judicial nominees, save Justices of the Supreme Court, would be considered on majority votes and did not have to pass the Cloture Vote threshold.  

The Reid Rule was great when one's party is in control of the Senate and the White House. But in 2017, President Donald Trump will occupy the White House and Republicans have a two seat majority in the Senate.  Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer thinks that he can stymie the Trump Administration through the advice and consent clause as well as any Supreme Court nominations which do not represent progressive Democrat values.  However, Schumer may well rue the Reid rule legacy from Dirty Harry Reid. 

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Salem Radio host Hugh Hewitt had an informative colloquy on the Reid Rule.

 Republicans may not moderate their choices for positions which need to be confirmed by the Senate.  Despite Harry Reid's contention that the "Reid Rule" excludes Supreme Court nominees, it is contented that avoiding Cloture for a Supreme Court nomination would simply be a second application of the Reid Rule precedent.

Chuck Schumer on Working with Trump

The Din of Disdain for Obama's Chief "Diplomatch" John Kerry

In the waning days of the Obama Administration, international affairs are sullying the lame duck President's legacy.  In a United Nations Security Council vote held before Christmas, the United States failed to block a resolution condemning Israel for settlements in disputed territories. 

This was a shift in American policy, which had previously threatened to veto such condemnations of our democratic ally in the Middle East.  It is widely speculated that American diplomats orchestrated the UN Security Council Vote vote, which the US subsequently abstained to not have diplomatic fingerprints on the rebuke of the Jewish State.

After Christmas, President Obama's Secretary of State doubled down on critics of America's ally in Israel with a 73 minute repetitive harangue of a speech which chided Israel about settlements 42 times and occupation 14 times, while the haughty foreign minister only mentioned Iran and Hezbollah one time, and Hamas (which is part of the Palestinian governing leadership) four times. Perhaps Kerry thinks that America's foreign policy will now pass "the global test". 





Reaction to the Obama Administration's outgoing admonitions of Israel have been swift and bipartisan. The Washington Times characterized incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)  as tearing into John Kerry's Israeli speech as it emboldened extremists. House Foreign Affairs Ranking Member Rep. Elliot Engel (D-NY 16th) vowed to work with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Congress withholding UN funds until the anti- Israel vote is reversed   Senator Cruz had some bitter analysis over the Obama Administration's anti-Israel tact.

Even President Elect Donald Trump entered the fray, opining on social media that things would   change come January 20th.

Recently, a progressive interlocutor opined that President Obama has been Israel's best friend ever.  I thought that was a dubious assertion.  But Secretary of State Kerry's penchant for acting like a Diplomatch (sic) really impeaches that opinion. 

Even after all of the tumult after the 2016 election, it is surprising that what is bringing Democrats and Republicans together is the foreign policy pyrotechnics of the outgoing Obama Administration.