On Tuesday I told you that the Republican leadership in the Senate shook hands with the devil and came to an agreement in order for Barack Obama to push through his radical nominees, among them new Labor Secretary Thomas Perez and the new head of the EPA Gina McCarthy. However, keep in mind that this agreement may just be applied to gun control, which would be in keeping with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney's prediction.
The Associated Press reported on Monday:
McConnell called Democrats' proposed changes contrary to Senate tradition, which typically requires 60 votes to end debate and move forward on nominations or legislation.
"I hope that we'll come to our senses and not change the core of the Senate. We've never changed the rules of the Senate by breaking the rules of the Senate," McConnell said.
But Democrats control the Senate, and Republicans could be at their mercy.
However, by Tuesday a deal was done that would not only stop filibusters of the above confirmations, but also confirmations of Richard Cordray to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Fred Hochberg for the Export-Import Bank, and Mark Pearce would be confirmed to the NLRB.
Gun Owners of America warns though that this could this is just a signal that Harry Reid and the Democrats are merely making it clear they are willing to break the rules in order to win and once that is done the rules are meaningless.
So it is with some alarm that we note that Harry Reid -- in an exercise of raw power -- intends within the next week to try to openly break the Senate rules in order to confirm all pending Executive Branch nominees.
You may remember that, at the beginning of the year, Reid made the specious argument that you could change the rules at the beginning of a two-year congressional session -- and only at the beginning of the congressional session.
Well, we are no longer at the start of the term.
GOA then adds:
Once it is impossible to filibuster Executive Branch appointments, Obama will soon carry through on his word to slam through a rabidly anti-gun zealot to head the ATF.
And does anyone think that the Senate would comply with the niceties of the rules it has obliterated -- if what was at stake was an anti-gun zealot nominated to the Supreme Court in order to overturn the Heller and McDonald decisions?
Finally, it is just not credible for Reid to say: "I'm going to cheat. But I'm going to define the way in which I cheat to limit my cheating to this narrow way."
So what's the conclusion? If the Senate's filibuster rules are removed completely, expect any and all gun control legislation to pass, including the Toomey Manchin amendment, with universal gun registries and possibly even ratification of the United Nations Small Arms Treaty, which Barack Obama has said he will sign quietly when Congress is not in session.
GOA reminds us "Gun owners should realize that the Feinstein gun and magazine bans lost by such a large margin only because a lot of anti-gun senators knew they would not muster the 60 votes needed. If there were a 50-vote margin -- and their votes made a difference -- many of these anti-gunners would switch their votes and pass Feinstein. So the reason gun control did not pass is because the Senate rules allowing us to filibuster it. They may seem dry and boring, but the question of whether we win or lose will depend on them."
Our senators need to hear our voices once again that this type of playing with Senate rules in order to help their political enemies achieve victory is nothing more than selling out their constituents. You can contact your senator here.