Gorsuch: A Win & Loss!

As far as the Nuclear Option is concerned, the fiesta simply illustrates the systemic political depravity the body (Senate) has imposed upon itself; yet another reason for Congressional Term-Limits.

With respect to the Court, again we see the open and willful contamination by a pathogen whose conviction is defined in destructive terms and not to the solemnity of the Courts sacred function. In the “advise and consent” role the Senate too often shuns political neutrality favoring instead the most oblique forms of rancor; the American Republic suffers while the Senior Elite score bragging rights; multiple LOSSES.

Gorsuch, particularly for those who understand the necessity of strict interpretation, is a WIN for the American People whether they know it or not. Without a faithful allegiance to a foundational reference (in this case the U.S. Constitution) the construct of what is deemed the Law is nothing more than a whimsical tail, a thallic blunder that squanders the rule of what might otherwise be the Law into something quite different; lawlessness.

Fortunately, this action only affects Cabinet and Federal Court appointments, and now the Supreme Court which is how it should have been in the first place. However, if the Senate attempts to break super-majority rules for legislative functions they are going to have a far more difficult time as the Presidency still retains veto power and a supermajority for override as well as the other requirements within the Constitution that remain in place; a “win” in constitutional terms.

Still, as it occurs to me, how does one assert the standard of a representative form of government when a simple majority (a mere 51 percent) is deemed representative of the whole? I understand the objections by those who would suggest that if all Congressional actions required a supermajority (as the minimum) that nothing would ever be accomplished.

My response would be any combination of the following:

  1. How would it differ from what presently occurs?
  2. That standard would be compatible with the ideal of “Limited Government.”
  3. Given the need to achieve the higher standard a more cohesive sense of purpose would be required and for this reason I believe it would raise the caliber of legislation.

Of course, there is always the opposing risk; a robust level of conciliatory (pork-barrel/riders) actions that the effort becomes a testament for the wretched excess of the lowest-possible-common-denominator form of governance. Well, look at it this way: If you don’t aim high one can expect to fall short of a distant target.

Curtis C. Greco, Founder

This entry was posted in Poli-Philos and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.