You Will Give Us Merrick Garland Or You May Go Die in a Fire.'

You Will Give Us Merrick Garland Or You
May Go Die in a Fire.’
Professor David Faris, writing in The Week, seems to think the
minority party in the Senate is in a position to dictate terms and
in fact make threats:

  Democrats must comprehend, at long last, what is being done to
  them by the Republican Party. The Democratic negotiating position
  on all issues put before them while they are in the House and
  Senate minority for at least the next two years should be very
  simple: You will give us Merrick Garland or you may go die in a fire.

Yeah, you go sell that strategy to Democratic senators in red states
up for reelection in 2018 -- I mean, the ones who haven’t already
sent their resumes to Trump Tower.

Faris’s piece, already rocketing around Facebook, is entitled, “It’s
time for Democrats to fight dirty.”

There is nothing more reassuring to a political party that just lost
an election than telling themselves they lost because they were
“too nice.” A close second is their message is too high-minded and
sophisticated for those knuckle-dragging voters; the opposition
speaks in bumper stickers, we speak in complicated and nuanced
position papers. (This after “Hope and Change” and “Yes, We
Can.”) I recall Republicans believing this after 2008 and 2012. I
recall Democrats believing this after 2004, 2010 and 2014.
Strangely, I don’t think polling, focus groups or other instruments
of measuring voter decision-making or intent has ever found a
person who said, “No, I voted for the other guys, because that
party is too nice.”

It’s time for Democrats to “fight dirty”? Really? You think Hillary
Clinton’s campaign against Trump was too nice? Not negative
enough? You think the reason Donald Trump won the 2016
presidential election was because he wasn’t attacked enough
times? Not enough scandals, accusations of bad behavior --
personally, sexually, financially, claims of sinister connections to
foreign governments? You think having half of Hollywood come
out to make propaganda music videos touting the joys of your

candidate isn’t “fighting dirty,” huh? You think transforming
colleges and universities into giant bases of ideological warfare
isn’t fighting dirty? You think using the dues of union members
with all kinds of political views to fund a partisan political
campaign isn’t fighting dirty?

Faris’s piece is a fantastic example of the sputtering rage of the
Left at this moment, convinced that Obama’s presidency was a
phenomenal success, that no Republican opposition to his agenda
was ever legitimate, and that the electorate that was so wise and
clear-headed in 2008 and 2012 has suddenly become easily-
fooled sheep again.

He gives the game away here:

  ...our political system as currently constituted has turned into a
  fiefdom for a permanent right-wing minority wielding power through
  the Constitution's bizarre quirks, including the Electoral College.

This is what really infuriates the raging Left right now: They aren’t
get what they want because of the Constitution, and provisions of
that founding document that never bothered them before, like the
separation of powers, rules for confirmation of judges, and the
electoral college, are now “bizarre quirks.” For the past year, every
high-society progressive in Manhattan gushed about Alexander
Hamilton as the greatest and most unsung Founding Father --

clearly, the best rapper among them. Suddenly the architect of the
Electoral College ranks as one of great monsters of American
history.

Some Senate Democrats now say their plan is to hold up Trump’s
nominees as long as possible.

  Any individual senator can force Senate Majority Leader Mitch
  McConnell to hold procedural votes on nominees. Senior
  Democrats said a series of such votes are likely for many of
  Trump’s picks.

  Democrats could conceivably force up to 30 hours of debate for
  each Cabinet nominee, which would be highly disruptive for a GOP
  Senate that usually works limited hours but has big ambitions for
  next year. The minority could also stymie lower-level nominees and
  potentially keep the Senate focused on executive confirmations for
  weeks as Trump assumes the presidency and congressional
  Republicans try to capitalize on their political momentum.

Hold hearings? Absolutely. Tough questioning? Perfectly fair.
Recorded votes? Please do.

But weren’t the Democrats just telling us that Trump is an
unhinged, dangerous, demagogic narcissistic maniac who could
wake up one morning and nuke Belgium because he’s in a bad

mood? Wouldn’t you want as many experienced, reliable, level-
headed voices around Trump as possible? Remember, Mike Flynn
and Steven Bannon don’t require Senate confirmation. If I were a
Democrat and believed my own rhetoric, I would want someone
like James Mattis in the chain-of-command and officially advising
Trump as soon as possible.

Democrats tell themselves that they’re the noble victims of a one-
sided partisan war. They’re completely oblivious to how they
escalate these fights:

  Eight years ago, when the roles were reversed, with Barack Obama
  taking office and an all-Democratic Congress, Republicans were
  mostly deferential to the incoming president. On Obama's first day
  in office, the Senate confirmed seven of Obama's Cabinet
  nominees. By the end of that week, it had cleared more than a
  dozen senior-level positions, all without dissent except for Hillary
  Clinton’s nomination to be secretary of state, for which the GOP
  demanded a roll call.

Far too many Democrats can only see the world in terms of what
they politically need in this particular moment. They can’t see too
far down the road, or how an issue will look when they’re in a
different circumstances. Here’s Senator Chris Coons of Delaware,

basically begging Senate Republicans to reinstate the filibuster for
nominations:

  BOLDUAN: But Senator, also a rules change the Democrats put in
  place could also come back to bite you. I mean, I don't get into the
  weeds, but Democrats made it much easier than a simple majority
  can push through presidential nominees. Democrats did it for
  themselves and now Republicans can do it as well.

  COONS: That's exactly right. The filibuster no longer acts as
  emergency brake on the nomination --

  BOLDUAN: So do you regret that?

  COONS: I do regret that. I frankly think many of us will regret that in
  this Congress because it would have been a terrific speed bump,
  potential emergency brake, to have in our system to slow down the
  confirmation of extreme nominees. We're instead going to have to
  depend on the American people, on thorough hearings and/or
  persuading a number of Republicans in those cases where
  President-elect Trump might nominate someone, who is just too
  extreme to the American people.

“Dear opponents who I have consistently demonized as the root
of all evil for the past few years: please give up a power we gave
you to save us from the consequences of our own decisions.”