Posted on 11/17/2024 8:12:03 AM PST by bitt
Democrats assert power after victories, while Republicans compromise—Trump’s 2024 return, with bold Cabinet picks, challenges this norm.
“Elections,” Barack Obama told a group of cowering Republican lawmakers early in 2009, “have consequences.” He then drove the point home by reminding them, “I won.”
In truth, Democrats tend to understand this law of the political universe more clearly than do Republicans.
The usual rule is this: when Democrats win elections, they wield power. When Republicans win elections, they seek, or at least agree to, compromise.
In Suicide of the West, the political philosopher James Burnham quotes the nineteenth-century French writer Louis Veuillot, who summed up the essence of this political dialectic in one elegant sentence. Quand je suis le plus faible, je vous demande la liberté parce que tel est votre principe; mais quand je suis le plus fort, je vous l’ôte, parce que tel est le mien. “When I am the weaker, I ask you for my freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.”
For examples of the latter, I invite you to ponder the behavior of Joe Biden’s Department of Justice, especially the behavior of the despicable Merrick Garland, the Attorney General, these last three and a half years.
Had the Democrats won the 2024 election, we would have seen many more examples of this principle in action. Assuming the Dems had kept the Senate, we would have seen them dispense with the filibuster, thus turning that chamber into what outgoing West Virginian Senator Joe Manchin called “the House on steroids.” They would have packed the Supreme Court, adding a few new “progressive” members to the bench to counter the power of Justices like Clarence Thomas. They likely would have imposed term- or age-limits
(Excerpt) Read more at amgreatness.com ...
p
If Schumer needs some bipartisanship in the Senate, he can go “rescue” a puppy. Screw him. FCS.
Speaking of wielding power - is adding Associate Justices to go to 11, or say 15, just a majority vote in both Houses and a signature?
Let’s hope it challenges it right into the garbage dump of history where it belongs.
BTTT
I know you've heard this one before, but I'm takin' the rest of the day off. :^)
Shows you just who the republican elite really are.demorat B team
Bookmark.
As the excerpt states, first eliminate filibustering, then changing Supreme Court would need only a majority of votes to pass.
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.