As America approaches Election Day on November 5th, it is important for Republicans to put this election cycle into proper perspective.
While most of us want former President Donald Trump to win, of equal importance is the contest for control of the US Senate.Currently the split is 51-50 for Democrats when Vice President Kamala Harris votes to overcome a tie.
Why is the Senate so important?
Because whether Trump wins or not, the US Senate is the last bastion for three important matters that the Senate can decide: all issues involving the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS), the Cloture Rule, and preserving the US Constitution.
If Vice President Harris wins and she gets a favorable Senate (a 50-50 split) she may have an opportunity to appoint a new Justice, if Democrats are successful in convincing a Democratic Justice to retire early so that a younger liberal could be appointed. All fingers point primarily to current Justice Sonia Sotomayor, age 70, who was appointed by Democratic President Barrack Obama, but Justice Elena Kagan, age 64, is potentially also on the chopping block if Far Left activists get their way.
There is nothing wrong with the way that either Justice votes on issues important to Democratic ideology, it is simply to get a Justice(s) who will be able to serve for a generation or more on the highest court.
Control of the Senate equates to control of SCOTUS and all of the multitude of decisions that the Court makes from determining which cases they will hear in a coming term, to emergency motions on critical issues, and, of course, their final decisions which become the “law of the land.”
If Trump wins and the GOP takes control of the Senate, then if there are any premature vacancies on the court, Trump will have the opportunity, once again, to seal the future of the Court. This is true only to the extent that a Justice nominated actually rules in the fashion that the President is hopeful for, and that has not always been the case for many Presidents from both parties.
The second prominent issue deals with the Cloture Rule which was originally proposed by British Liberal Party leader William E. Gallstone (who served four times as British Prime Minister) to Parliament in 1887 in an attempt to overcome the stubborn Irish Parliamentary Party during prolonged debate. Later adopted by the US Senate in a special session at the behest of then-President Woodrow Wilson in 1917, the rule ensures that debate cannot be cut-off unless 60 members vote to do so.
Though the Rule originally required a two-thirds vote to bring an issue to a vote, in 1975, the Rule was altered to require just three-fifths vote to shut down debate and require a vote.
In most cases, shutting down debate in the most exclusive “debating society” in the world, requires some Senatorial bi-partisanship because control of the US Senate is often pretty close in numbers, and otherwise sometimes in ideology. This has been demonstrated to the chagrin of Republicans in recent years, when so-called RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) failed to always support fellow Republicans on a key issue.
It is a testament to Democrats that they have been able to be much more successful in “circling the wagons” and effectively vote as a unified bloc, with few if any desertions.
The alternative to the Rule is the filibuster, the attempt to continue debate for an extraordinarily long time to delay or prevent a vote on a bill, resolution, amendment, or other debatable question. In American history, the most famous filibuster was the 75 hours of debate over the Civil Rights Act of 1964 led by former West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd. The individual record belongs to another southerner, South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond, who spoke 24 hours and 18 minutes!
In fact, the Cloture Rule continues to exist today only because two Democratic senators – West Virgina’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Krysten Sinema – refused to kowtow to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s brazen attempt to gut the Rule.
To their credit, both Senator’s recognized that the Rule has survived every test of mettle in the Senate, under both Democratic and Republican control, for over one-hundred years, which ensures that the minority has a robust voice on any given issue. This time-honored tradition is unique in American government because the US House of Representatives does not have a similar rule.
In 2013, the then Democratic-controlled Senate adopted an amended Rule that required only 51 votes for confirmation of any Presidential appointment, the “nuclear option,” and the minority Republicans warned that Dems would not always be in control, and they would one day rue this momentous change to the Rule.
Thus, just four years later, when the GOP took control of the Senate they extended the amended Rule to also include Supreme Court nominees.
If the Rule is fully revoked so that it is extended to the basic question of debate, then a simple majority of the Senate would be able to close debate immediately once a bill has been introduced on the floor of the upper chamber, quashing the minority’s voice once and forever.
While it is very unlikely that the Senate, while under either Party’s control in the future, will ever be magnanimous to move back to the Rule on Presidential executive-agency heads and all federal court nominations, the abolition of the Rule on debate, would detrimentally extinguish the reputation of the Senate and hurt Americans in many ways.
The final issue of import is the preservation of the US Constitution as we have known it, albeit amended often, but not since 1992 when the 27th Amendment was adopted. Argumentatively, it is quite unlikely, given the partisan divide that exists now, that any amendment could be added to ourgoverning document.
Yet, nonetheless, there are currently some proposed amendments floating around, some for a long time, like equal rights for women, and a newer one on abridging equal rights on account of sex.
Interestingly, while there is no specific time limit on passage of a constitutional amendment, Congress has in all practical terms set a seven-year deadline for the requisite number of states to ratify a proposed amendment.
Radical proposals for constitutional change has included abortion, the electoral college, and federal Congressional term limits, among others.
The recently resurrected concept of packing the Supreme Court by enlarging it or changing life tenure to set terms or age limits, as proposed by Far Left Democrats to enable a Democrat President to “pack the Court” in the future is not a constitutional matter, but one that only has to be addressed by Congress, another justification for maintaining the Cloture Rule to afford an airing of all views on this critically important issue.
Since 1789, when the first Judiciary Act was passed, the number of jurists on SCOTUS has changed on several occasions. However, the current number of nine including the Chief Justice, has been maintained since 1869 and the likelihood of packing, limiting tenure, or an age limit is only possible if both chambers of the federal legislature and the presidency are held by the Democrats because Republicans are vehemently and vociferously opposed in changing the status quo.
Of course, the presidential election will remain paramount in the minds of almost all Americans until early November as it should, but it could be some solace for Republicans that if Harris were to win the presidency, while the Senate flipped to GOP control, to the tune of say 53 Senators, that our most basic political framework of checks and balances will be appropriately retained.
One final note. Since the 35th Congress (in 1857-59 when the two-party system of Democrats and Republicans became a reality), one-party control has been the rule, rather than the exception. Surprisingly to me, during these last 167 years, Democrats have had total (both the House, Senate, and the presidency) control for 48 years and Republicans have had 54 years, the reverse of what I had expected.
Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election, the fight for dominance in the US Senate remainsconsequential in whether America remains a republic as envisioned and implemented by our Founding Fathers.
Author
