Now comes word that Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has taken one of Barack Obama’s treasured “legacy” items — his criminal justice sentencing bill — and dusted it off again in the hope that the Senate will consider and pass the legislation.

Grassley apparently believes that, by rewarding the Left with their treasured “sentencing reform,” Democrats will lessen their attacks on Grassley over the vacant Supreme Court seat.

Of course, it never works that way.

When conservatives bow to liberal pressure, it only energizes the Left to demand more. Nothing in politics is more of a motivator than the first glint of success.

So the sentencing bill, S. 2123, is once again a possibility for the Senate legislative schedule.

Even assuming the new “compromise” takes out the anti-gun sections (105(a)(1) and 108), it’s probably a mistake to resurrect it:

So why is this bill a stab in the GOP’s back?

FIRST: LETTING DRUG TRAFFICKERS OUT ON THE STREETS CORRUPTS THE GOP’S “BRAND”

Barack Obama cleverly posits “sentencing” in terms of “non-violent drug offenders” — a narrative which is intended to mask the true nature of the problem.

It is a lie to assume that — except in freak cases — criminals go to federal prison for mere “drug possession.”  As Congressman Lamar Smith points out, 99% of drug offenders in federal prisons were actually convicted of drug trafficking.  And 90% of these plead down to “drug trafficking” from something worse.

Why are Senate Republicans so eager to “co-own” a serious problem which Americans justifiably blame on Democrats?

SECOND: “TREATMENT” ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION HAVE BEEN TRIED IN PLACES LIKE TEXAS — AND HAVE FAILED

In Texas, almost one-fourth of inmates released were reincarcerated within three years.

In fact, those who have served prison sentences tend to be responsible for a disproportionate percent of crime — and are overwhelmingly recidivists.  A recent Justice Department study of prisoners released in 30 states concluded that over 70% were subsequently arrested — 29% for violent offenses.

THIRD: THE EXPLOSION IN DRUG ABUSE HAS REACHED EPIDEMIC PROPORTIONS IN AT LEAST 30 STATES — AND THREATENS TO TURN INTO A MAJOR ELECTION ISSUE

Why are Senate Republicans so eager to “co-own” a serious problem which Americans justifiably blame on Democrats?

FOURTH:  THE WAY NEGOTIATIONS NORMALLY WORK IS LIKE THIS:

DEMOCRATS GET SOMETHING THEY WANT; REPUBLICANS GET SOMETHING THEY WANT

Yet it is unclear what Republicans have gotten from this deal.

For Democrats, the freed drug traffickers become “Hillary voters” in 14 states as soon as they walk out the prison door. In another 18 states, they can become “blue state voters” when their probation has run out. In all, 44 states will make them into Democratic voters at some time.

In the meantime, the NAACP, Leadership Conference, etc., will use the passage of sentencing “reform” to energize voters in the upcoming election.

As for Hillary herself, whose husband signed mandatory minimums, an enormous political weight will have been lifted from her shoulders: Mandatory minimums will no longer be a “buzz-kill” to the turnout of her base.

Conservatives, on the other hand, have asked for “mens rea reform,” and it appears the Senate is going to give them … nothing.

Ironically, a Washington Post column by Ruth Marcus explains that Hillary Clinton will never be indicted because her potential criminal acts require … mens rea.

Yet the same legal protections that protect Clinton are steadfastly being denied to otherwise law-abiding businessmen who didn’t “intentionally” or “willfully” do anything wrong.

So … what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If Democrats hate mens rea requirements for guns and regulatory offenses, they shouldn’t hide behind the same mens rea requirements which they deny others.

The bottom line? If Grassley thinks he can “capitulate his way to reelection,” he is sorely mistaken. In doing so, he will depress his base, energize his opposition, and, in the process, create a drug pandemic which will only result in demands for more … gun control.

Michael “Mike” Hammond is the former Executive Director of the Senate Steering Committee and was often called the “101st Senator” when he worked on Capitol Hill. Today he serves as the General Counsel of Gun Owners of America.