![\"Why](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.dougsbriefcase.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/06\/Harry-Reid-image.jpg\")
<\/a>Why is this man so sad? The Sen\u00adate\u2019s most pow\u00ader\u00adful man yearns for more pow\u00ader. [Cred\u00adit: themediahaven.com]<\/p><\/div>Nobody does sad\u00adness like Har\u00adry Reid (D\u2011NV<\/span>). His deflat\u00aded body slumped over the podi\u00adum atop his Sen\u00adate desk, head shak\u00ading slow\u00adly, his faint raspy voice a mix\u00adture of res\u00adig\u00adna\u00adtion and exas\u00adper\u00ada\u00adtion, Reid spends much of his time as the Senate\u2019s most pow\u00ader\u00adful fig\u00adure bemoan\u00ading his lack of power.\n The bur\u00addens imposed by Repub\u00adli\u00adcans and Sen\u00adate rules seem more than the 73-year-old Sen\u00adate Major\u00adi\u00adty Leader can bear. To hear him tell it, Reid is beset by Repub\u00adli\u00adcan \u201ccra\u00adzies<\/a>,<\/span>\u201d who manip\u00adu\u00adlate the insti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u2019s rules to pre\u00advent him from doing all man\u00adner of won\u00adder\u00adful things. Since he can\u2019t rid him\u00adself of Repub\u00adli\u00adcans, he would be done with restraints imposed by the rules.<\/p>\n Fil\u00adi\u00adbuster is the Repub\u00adli\u00adcan weapon of choice. Reid has filed clo\u00adture<\/a> (a motion to cut off Sen\u00adate debate) 181 times since Pres\u00adi\u00addent Oba\u00adma took office, and has gar\u00adnered the req\u00adui\u00adsite 60 votes to invoke clo\u00adture only 115 times. He believes that the Sen\u00adate rules should be changed to restrict the right of Sen\u00ada\u00adtors to engage in debate. Changes to the Sen\u00adate rules, how\u00adev\u00ader, require 67 votes. So Reid is con\u00adtem\u00adplat\u00ading the use of the so-called \u201cnuclear option<\/a>\u201d to change Sen\u00adate rules by sim\u00adple major\u00adi\u00adty vote.<\/p>\n Enlarg\u00ading Har\u00adry Reid\u2019s pow\u00ader by tram\u00adpling the institution\u2019s rules under foot is good for you. Just ask Har\u00adry Reid.<\/p>\n You might also ask him how 181 \u201cfil\u00adi\u00adbusters\u201d have escaped pub\u00adlic notice. Ordi\u00adnar\u00adi\u00adly when a Sen\u00ada\u00adtor takes the floor to speak at length on an issue, we hear about it. Dur\u00ading her fil\u00adi\u00adbuster this past week against a bill<\/a> that would have restrict\u00aded late-term abor\u00adtions and required that abor\u00adtions be per\u00adformed in ambu\u00adla\u00adto\u00adry sur\u00adgi\u00adcal cen\u00adters, Texas State Sen\u00ada\u00adtor Wendy Davis, elec\u00adtri\u00adfied sup\u00adport\u00aders, inspir\u00ading 400,000 reg\u00adis\u00adtered tweets <\/a>with the hash\u00adtag #stand\u00adwith\u00adwendy. Ear\u00adli\u00ader this year, US<\/span> Sen\u00ada\u00adtor Rand Paul (R\u2011KY<\/span>) under\u00adtook a fil\u00adi\u00adbuster to protest the use of drones against U.S. cit\u00adi\u00adzens. He, too, attract\u00aded enor\u00admous atten\u00adtion and sup\u00adport and, accord\u00ading to some polls, moved pub\u00adlic opin\u00adion <\/a>in favor of his position.<\/p>\n Fil\u00adi\u00adbusters get noticed. So how have we man\u00adaged not to notice 181 fil\u00adi\u00adbusters? Because there haven\u2019t been 181 fil\u00adi\u00adbusters. In the mind of the belea\u00adguered Sen\u00ada\u00adtor Reid, the mere desire to debate or amend a bill is a fil\u00adi\u00adbuster. When he brings a bill to the Sen\u00adate floor, he typ\u00adi\u00adcal\u00adly employs tac\u00adtics to pre\u00advent it from being amend\u00aded. He then orders a clo\u00adture vote to choke off debate. And if Repub\u00adli\u00adcans don\u2019t vote to end debate on a bill the Sen\u00adate hasn\u2019t begun to debate, they are, by Reid\u2019s reck\u00adon\u00ading, engaged in a filibuster.<\/p>\n It\u2019s inter\u00adest\u00ading that when Reid has per\u00admit\u00adted amend\u00adment and debate, the Sen\u00adate has passed bills<\/a>,<\/span> includ\u00ading the immi\u00adgra\u00adtion reform bill just this past week, often with large, bipar\u00adti\u00adsan majori\u00adties. Still, you can\u2019t blame him for want\u00adi\u00adng to get his way with\u00adout hav\u00ading to endure an actu\u00adal debate or for threat\u00aden\u00ading to twist Sen\u00adate rules to grant him\u00adself more pow\u00ader. Every\u00adwhere he looks, the oth\u00ader branch\u00ades of the fed\u00ader\u00adal gov\u00adern\u00adment are breach\u00ading their lim\u00adits. Why can\u2019t he?<\/p>\n In recent months, we\u2019ve learned that the Exec\u00adu\u00adtive Branch is brush\u00ading aside Fourth Amend\u00adment safe\u00adguards by col\u00adlect\u00ading our phone records, vio\u00adlat\u00ading the First Amend\u00adment guar\u00adan\u00adtee of a free press by threat\u00aden\u00ading to pros\u00ade\u00adcute reporters who pub\u00adlished leaked infor\u00adma\u00adtion, and ignor\u00ading First Amend\u00adment rights to orga\u00adnize and protest gov\u00adern\u00adment actions by harass\u00ading groups seek\u00ading to obtain 501(c)(4) tax sta\u00adtus. And those are just the things we\u2019ve found out about.<\/p>\n This week, it was the judiciary\u2019s turn to flex its mus\u00adcles. In what may well be a record, the Supreme Court on suc\u00adces\u00adsive days struck down key pro\u00advi\u00adsions of two acts of Con\u00adgress: the ven\u00ader\u00ada\u00adble Vot\u00ading Rights Act of 1965 and the Defense of Mar\u00adriage Act (DOMA<\/span>). What is most instruc\u00adtive is to see how the jus\u00adtices shift\u00aded their views on the lim\u00adits of judi\u00adcial pow\u00ader in the two cases.<\/p>\n In her dis\u00adsent from the Court\u2019s rul\u00ading on the Vot\u00ading Rights Act<\/a>,<\/span> Jus\u00adtice Ruth Bad\u00ader Gins\u00adburg expressed dis\u00admay that five of her col\u00adleagues could inval\u00adi\u00addate a law that had passed Con\u00adgress by such large majorities.<\/p>\n \u201c<\/span>The ques\u00adtion this case presents is who decides whether, as cur\u00adrent\u00adly oper\u00ada\u00adtive, sec\u00adtion 5 [of the Vot\u00ading Rights Act of 1965] remains jus\u00adti\u00adfi\u00adable, this Court, or a Con\u00adgress charged with the oblig\u00ada\u00adtion to enforce the post-Civ\u00adil War Amend\u00adments \u2018by appro\u00adpri\u00adate leg\u00adis\u00adla\u00adtion.\u2019 With over\u00adwhelm\u00ading sup\u00adport in both Hous\u00ades, Con\u00adgress con\u00adclud\u00aded that \u2026 sec\u00adtion 5 should con\u00adtin\u00adue in force, unabat\u00aded. \u2026 Those assess\u00adments were well with\u00adin Con\u00adgress\u2019 province to make and should elic\u00adit this Court\u2019s unstint\u00ading appro\u00adba\u00adtion\u201d [Gins\u00adburg dis\u00adsent, p. 1.]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n But in a rul\u00ading<\/a> announced the very next day, Gins\u00adburg chose not to give \u201cunstint\u00ading appro\u00adba\u00adtion\u201d to DOMA<\/span>, a bill that also had gar\u00adnered \u201cover\u00adwhelm\u00ading sup\u00adport in both hous\u00ades [of] Con\u00adgress.\u201d She joined in a major\u00adi\u00adty opin\u00adion that effec\u00adtive\u00adly dis\u00admissed Con\u00adgress as a hate group. Jus\u00adtice Scalia, in his dis\u00adsent, described that opinion:<\/p>\n \u201c<\/span>The major\u00adi\u00adty says that the sup\u00adport\u00aders of this Act act\u00aded with malice\u2014with the \u2018pur\u00adpose\u2019 \u2018to dis\u00adpar\u00adage and to injure\u2019 same-sex cou\u00adples. It says that the moti\u00adva\u00adtion for DOMA<\/span> was to \u2018demean,\u2019 to \u2018impose inequal\u00adi\u00adty,\u2019 to \u2018impose \u2026 a stig\u00adma\u2019; to deny peo\u00adple \u2018equal dig\u00adni\u00adty\u2019; to brand gay peo\u00adple as \u2018unwor\u00adthy\u2019; and to \u2018humiliat[e]\u2019 their chil\u00addren \u2026 It is one thing for a soci\u00adety to elect change; it is anoth\u00ader for a court of law to impose change by adjudg\u00ading those who oppose it \u2026 ene\u00admies of the human race.\u201d [Scalia dis\u00adsent, p. 21].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The deci\u00adsion to strike down this act of Con\u00adgress, accord\u00ading to Scalia, was an uncon\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal pow\u00ader grab:<\/p>\n \u201c<\/span>This case is about pow\u00ader in sev\u00ader\u00adal respects. It is about the pow\u00ader of our peo\u00adple to gov\u00adern them\u00adselves, and the pow\u00ader of this Court to pro\u00adnounce the law. Today\u2019s opin\u00adion aggran\u00addizes the lat\u00adter, with the pre\u00addictable con\u00adse\u00adquence of dimin\u00adish\u00ading the for\u00admer. We have no pow\u00ader to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no pow\u00ader under the Con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adtion to inval\u00adi\u00addate this demo\u00adc\u00adra\u00adt\u00adi\u00adcal\u00adly adopt\u00aded leg\u00adis\u00adla\u00adtion. The Court\u2019s errors on both points spring forth from the same dis\u00adeased root: an exalt\u00aded con\u00adcep\u00adtion of the role of this insti\u00adtu\u00adtion in Amer\u00adi\u00adca\u201d [Scalia dis\u00adsent, p. 1].<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It should be not\u00aded that Scalia did not scru\u00adple about vot\u00ading to \u201cinval\u00adi\u00addate\u201d the \u201cdemo\u00adc\u00adra\u00adt\u00adi\u00adcal\u00adly adopt\u00aded leg\u00adis\u00adla\u00adtion\u201d known as the Vot\u00ading Rights Act, which some might regard as reflect\u00ading his own \u201cexalt\u00aded con\u00adcep\u00adtion\u201d of the High Court\u2019s role.<\/p>\n The upshot is that a shift\u00ading major\u00adi\u00adty of jus\u00adtices found their way to evis\u00adcer\u00adat\u00ading two acts of Con\u00adgress in two days, enlarg\u00ading the pow\u00ader of the judi\u00adcia\u00adry at the expense of Con\u00adgress and the President.<\/p>\n Chances are, you\u2019re hap\u00adpy with the result of one or both of these rul\u00adings and don\u2019t much care about the rea\u00adson\u00ading the Court used to reach that result. The result is good enough for you. You may believe that Con\u00adgress should update or repeal the Vot\u00ading Rights Act and there\u00adfore wel\u00adcome the Court\u2019s deci\u00adsion to crip\u00adple it. Maybe you hate DOMA<\/span> and pre\u00adfer the Court\u2019s edict to the hard work of per\u00adsuad\u00ading Con\u00adgress to repeal it. Maybe you trust the NSA<\/span> to keep us safe and don\u2019t real\u00adly mind that they\u2019ve found a way to cir\u00adcum\u00advent the Fourth Amend\u00adment. Maybe you resent the dam\u00adage leak\u00aders do and embrace the Jus\u00adtice Department\u2019s crack\u00addown on reporters, what\u00adev\u00ader its impli\u00adca\u00adtions for press free\u00addom. Maybe you find Tea Par\u00adty groups insuf\u00adfer\u00adable and don\u2019t think it\u2019s a big deal that the IRS<\/span> is screw\u00ading around with their appli\u00adca\u00adtions. Maybe you think it would be bet\u00adter if the Sen\u00adate worked like the House, where the major\u00adi\u00adty par\u00adty can hur\u00adried\u00adly pass bills with no amend\u00adments and lit\u00adtle debate.<\/p>\n On the oth\u00ader hand, maybe you find gov\u00adern\u00adment pow\u00ader creep by all three fed\u00ader\u00adal branch\u00ades a bit troubling.<\/p>\n I sure do.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Nobody does sad\u00adness like Har\u00adry Reid (D\u2011NV<\/span>). His deflat\u00aded body slumped over the podi\u00adum atop his Sen\u00adate desk, head shak\u00ading slow\u00adly, his faint raspy voice a mix\u00adture of res\u00adig\u00adna\u00adtion and exas\u00adper\u00ada\u00adtion, Reid spends much of his time as the Senate\u2019s \u2026 Con\u00adtin\u00adue read\u00ading