As I sip my DD coffee this morning the notion of checks and balances is creeping into my consciousness. I guess the commutation of Roger Stone has lead me into this cul de sac.
I have been troubled (aka pissed off) for the last three years by the abdication of constitutional responsibility of congress, specifically the Senate, to fulfill their role in the 'checks and balances' model designed by our founding fathers. The commutation of Roger Stones has once again put this on display. Only one senator, Mitt Romney, had the courage to speak out about the outrage of Cheeto's pardon of Stone solely done to protect himself from incriminating testimony downstream. Of course, Cheeto had the constitutional authority to pardon; all presidents have exercised this power, but I think the notion was to exercise it to correct or address judicial aberrations in the application of the law, not to protect your ass. It is clear from the lack of outcry in the Senate that party loyalty takes precedent over responsible governance.
We have seen time and time again how Mitch McConnell has manipulated the Senate to keep his senators in a Republican herd at the detriment of his constitutional responsibilities. One example is the notion of 'advise and consent.' The Senate has the responsibility to confirm presidential appointments for executive and judicial appointments. This is an obvious check on the executive branch to ensure its appointments are in the best interest of the country. Over the last three years, Cheeto's appointments have been rubber stamped with a 'herd' of unqualified appointees like Betsy DeVos, Rick Perry, Ben Carson, et. al., maybe good people ( open for debate), but clearly lacking the functional credentials to fulfill their roles as cabinet secretaries. I won't even go down the impeachment path except to say that the Senate Republicans as a body never intended to give the process a fair hearing but to align with the party and follow the herd to acquittal barn in spite of any evidence to the contrary.
We don't have to go too far back to see that the system can work if the players act responsibly. When Nixon was up to his eyeballs in Watergate, his own party came to him and told him to resign for the good of the country. He had lost his own party's support because of his egregious behavior. It can be done if you put country over party.
I could drag out this conversation into the judicial world and lament about Citizens United and the Voting Rights Act decisions, but my conclusions would lead me to the same end point. I think Checks and Balances has been a casualty to party loyalty and not good government.
On this note, I am making another pot of coffee.