The United States Capitol. In a letter to Wyoming Sens. John Barrasso and Mike Enzi, theological ethics student J.W. Pritchett urges compromise and reconciliation rather than more polarization. (WyoFile/Gregory Nickerson)

Dear Sens. Barrasso and Enzi,

It has been widely reported that the Democrats have acquired the necessary votes to filibuster the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Considering recent comments from Sens. Mitch McConnell and Chuck Grassley, among others, it seems clear the Republicans plan on using the so-called “nuclear option” to eliminate the possibility of a filibuster in Supreme Court appointment proceedings.

I am writing to implore you to oppose using the nuclear option.

Our country is experiencing a seemingly unprecedented level of partisanship. It is as if the city folk and the rest of us live in different worlds. And, our representatives are embodying that partisan polarity in the halls of power by refusing to work together, refusing to compromise, and refusing to even acknowledge the legitimacy of the opposing side’s perspective. The whole point of the government’s structure, from the electoral college to the checks and balances, is to inhibit the tyranny of the majority. With tyranny inhibited, the opposing parties are forced to share a table, listen to each other, compromise and move forward together. In recent decades, these structures have been eroding, and our country is suffering.

In 2013 the Democrats used the nuclear option to defeat Republican filibusters of lower court nominations. Back then Sen. McConnell asserted it was “a sad day in the history of the Senate” and argued that the move was a “power grab.” Similarly, Sen. Lamar Alexander said, “It’s another raw exercise of political power to permit the majority to do anything it wants whenever it wants to do it.” And, Sen. Richard Shelby noted you “won’t be in power in perpetuity. This is a mistake — a big one for the long run. Maybe not for the short run. Short-term gains, but I think it changes the Senate tremendously in a bad way.”

J.W. Pritchett

Please, listen to these eminently reasonable Republican voices. It is true of course that Democrats used the nuclear option first and that Democrats forced through major social legislation without a single Republican vote. Don’t use that as an excuse for eroding the structure and traditions of the Senate. Be the bigger men. Take the moral high ground. Consider the long-term good: the good of people who disagree coming to together, in compromise, to address their common concerns.

The supreme court ought to be above such sophomoric bickering. Allowing simple majorities such expansive power will simply encourage further polarization and contribute to our eroding trust in the government. If there is anything that ought to force us to the table to talk to each other and hear each other out, is it not the fate of the highest court in the land?

In fact, why don’t you go one step further? I encourage you both to support revising the Senate rules to return the power of the filibuster to the minority party even in lower court nominations. Restore the minority voice. Giving the minority its filibuster back would be an enormous step towards reconciliation and would structurally encourage greater discourse and compromise — something our nation deeply needs.

Sincerely,

J.W. Pritchett

 

Laramie resident J.W. Pritchett is a PhD candidate in Theological Ethics at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. He is deeply troubled by the state of polarization in our national government.

Never miss a Column — subscribe to WyoFile’s free weekly newsletter

Join the Conversation

1 Comment

WyoFile's goal is to provide readers with information and ideas that foster constructive conversations about the issues and opportunities our communities face. One small piece of how we do that is by offering a space below each story for readers to share perspectives, experiences and insights. For this to work, we need your help.

What we're looking for: 

  • Your real name — first and last. 
  • Direct responses to the article. Tell us how your experience relates to the story.
  • The truth. Share factual information that adds context to the reporting.
  • Thoughtful answers to questions raised by the reporting or other commenters.
  • Tips that could advance our reporting on the topic.
  • No more than three comments per story, including replies. 

What we block from our comments section, when we see it:

  • Pseudonyms. WyoFile stands behind everything we publish, and we expect commenters to do the same by using their real name.
  • Comments that are not directly relevant to the article. 
  • Demonstrably false claims, what-about-isms, references to debunked lines of rhetoric, professional political talking points or links to sites trafficking in misinformation.
  • Personal attacks, profanity, discriminatory language or threats.
  • Arguments with other commenters.

Other important things to know: 

  • Appearing in WyoFile’s comments section is a privilege, not a right or entitlement. 
  • We’re a small team and our first priority is reporting. Depending on what’s going on, comments may be moderated 24 to 48 hours from when they’re submitted — or even later. If you comment in the evening or on the weekend, please be patient. We’ll get to it when we’re back in the office.
  • We’re not interested in managing squeaky wheels, and even if we wanted to, we don't have time to address every single commenter’s grievance. 
  • Try as we might, we will make mistakes. We’ll fail to catch aliases, mistakenly allow folks to exceed the comment limit and occasionally miss false statements. If that’s going to upset you, it’s probably best to just stick with our journalism and avoid the comments section.
  • We don’t mediate disputes between commenters. If you have concerns about another commenter, please don’t bring them to us.

The bottom line:

If you repeatedly push the boundaries, make unreasonable demands, get caught lying or generally cause trouble, we will stop approving your comments — maybe forever. Such moderation decisions are not negotiable or subject to explanation. If civil and constructive conversation is not your goal, then our comments section is not for you. 

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  1. Hopefully he survives his state of being “deeply troubled”………in Scotland.