Posted on 12/14/2014 10:49:21 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It’s a question that will prove crucial next year when Mitch McConnell takes the reins of a new Senate: Just how big is the Ted Cruz caucus?
Three votes on the “cromnibus” late Saturday night suggest it could be as large as 22 senators — a dangerously high number for McConnell — or as few as a handful.
Let’s break down the three votes — on filibustering the $1.1 trillion package, on Cruz’s point of order aimed at targeting the president’s immigration action, and final passage.
The high-water mark for the Texas Republican came on his point of order vote, which 22 Republicans backed. While that represented a thumping, it could also be seen as a show of strength against the McConnell forces. Just 20 Republicans, including McConnell Republican Whip John Cornyn of Texas voted against Cruz; three did not vote.
Cruz’s point of order itself basically contended that the underlying bill was unconstitutional because it didn’t block President Barack Obama’s immigration action. Many Republicans, including Cruz, say they oppose the immigration action but don’t think the cromnibus itself is unconstitutional.
On final passage of the cromnibus, 18 Republicans voted no.
But only 12 Republicans joined Cruz in both votes for both his point of order and against the cromnibus. They are: Sens. Michael D. Crapo of Idaho, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, Mike Lee of Utah, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Rob Portman of Ohio, Jim Risch of Idaho, Marco Rubio of Florida, Tim Scott of South Carolina, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Richard C. Shelby of Alabama and David Vitter of Louisiana.
Nine others switched to yes on final passage after voting with Cruz to say the bill itself was unconstitutional. They are: Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, John Boozman of Arkansas, Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, Deb Fischer of Nebraska, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Mike Johanns of Nebraska, Pat Roberts of Kansas and John Thune of South Dakota. Johanns is retiring.
Those nine Republicans ended up providing the margin of victory for the underlying cromnibus, which passed 56-40.
Even that group of a dozen might be overstating Cruz’s hold on the GOP.
An even smaller subset of the Senate Republicans — 11 of them — voted with Cruz against final passage, for his point of order and to filibuster the bill in the first place: Crapo, Lee, Moran, Paul, Portman, Risch, Rubio, Scott, Shelby, Sessions and Vitter.
That’s more than enough to cause McConnell trouble given that he will have 54 Republicans in his camp and will need to get to 60 votes on most bills and likely 51 Republicans to pass a budget resolution.
Notable in the group who consistently voted with Cruz are his potential presidential rivals Paul and Rubio.
It’s also worth noting that Rubio continues his shift to the right after helping write the Senate immigration bill last year.
No Democrats supported the Cruz point of order.
Correction, 11:28 a.m.
An earlier version of this post omitted Scott as voting against cloture.
I notice this is the only point you addressed - still no support for your claimed distinction between alcohol and other drugs.
You don't know this basic fundamental Biblical doctrine ?
I don't believe that anything about government is a "basic fundamental" Biblical doctrine.
The civil government and it's laws are not for the spiritual good of lawbreakers.
Romans 13:4 (NIV): "For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good." (emphasis added)
The distinction between alcohol and drugs is obvious to anyone not playing games.
The civil government bears the sword to function as a restraint on evil, which is a blessing to the elect.
It doesn’t eliminate evil, it does not convert anyone to Christ. It just punishes lawbreakers, which is a blessing to the elect.
Now, go post something other than drug legalization propaganda just to make it look good.
Your propaganda is showing.
All your attempted arguments have been rebutted so you resort to a declaration of "obvious." Sad.
Romans 13:4 (NIV): "For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good." (emphasis added)
The civil government bears the sword to function as a restraint on evil, which is a blessing to the elect.
It doesn’t eliminate evil, it does not convert anyone to Christ. It just punishes lawbreakers, which is a blessing to the elect.
And yet I'm the only one who's actually supported his position with a quotation from the Bible.
Titus 3:10 “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;”
Portman should aim to be a Pete Wilson or Scott Brown type of RINO.
Portman is better on immigration than many of the self professed social conservatives like Ayotte, Rubio and Rand. He is a RINO but he is more informed than Rand, Rubio and probably most of the Senate on the issue.
He was the actual moderate while Schumer rammed through the 1986 amnesty.
http://cis.org/tale-of-two-senators
But he believed that the bill, far from solving the problem of worker verification, would compound it, extending the past failures far into the future. Rather than showing Congress’s ability to solve problems, he believed, it would demonstrate its capacity to perpetuate them. He was convinced that the promised reform would prove to be a damaging policy failure.
IRCA’S Shadow
Portman was haunted by IRCA’s failure. He saw it as corrosive not only of immigration control but also of public trust in government. “The 1986 bill casts a long shadow on this place,” Portman said in his June 26 exchange with Schumer, “and we’ve got to be sure we don’t repeat those mistakes.”
SNIP
Without effective verification, there can be no effective enforcement of the borders. Without effective enforcement, there can be no immigration reform worthy of the name. The choice for the House is clear: legislate or pretend.17
Portman believed that the Senate bill was a form of pretending. He thought that worker verification had been compromised to placate powerful political interests, just as it had been in 1986.
“Look, it is, frankly, not a very popular part of the legislation, and over the years it hasn’t been,” Portman said on June 26. “In 1986 it wasn’t. That is why it was never implemented, because there is sort of an unholy alliance among employers, among those representing labor union members, among those representing certain constituent groups who feel there might be some discrimination or other issues.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.