Free Markets, Free People

About those Senate rules – once they were “sacred.” Remember?

Harry Reid  and the Democrats think Republicans should “quit crying” about reconciliation. Shall we revisit that very bunch in 2005?

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

15 Responses to About those Senate rules – once they were “sacred.” Remember?

  • On this, you are wrong.  Reconciliation has always been a senate rule, and the republicans used it to pass President Bush’s tax cuts in both 2001 and 2003.  However, what Barack Obama is refering to in your video is the threats made, in 2005, that Republicans were going to change the Senate rules to outlaw filibusters on judicial nominees.  One of the first things out of Obama’s mouth in that video is “a change in the Senate rules”, obviously not referring to using existing Senate rules to pass a law, which is what they are currently doing.
    This is very sloppy on your part.

    • Reconciliation is used for budget items, not legislation such as health care. If you are aware of what can and can’t be passed in reconciliation, then you know what is being considered is a total misuse of the measure and an attempt to circumvent Senate rules requiring 60 votes. This is a blatant attempt to pass something – anything – by any means necessary or possible because it is clear following the Senate’s rules for legislation means it is not going to happen. Those are the rules in question here and those are the rules Democrats are trying hard to get around. Pretending otherwise is just that – pretending.

      There is a principle being discussed in those videos that seems to have gotten by you – they were all for protecting the rights of the minority when they were in the minority. Now, not so much.

      • From the Brookings Institution:
        http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2009/0420_budget_mann.aspx
        I count seven times since 1980 that reconciliation has been used to make changes to Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance in general.  True, the entire health insurance bill would not be appropriate to pass under reconciliation, but that is not what Democrats are proposing.  Reconciliation will be used to make changes to the health care bill that has already gotten the 60 votes required in the Senate to make it more palatable to the House.
        And the principle being discussed?  That a group of politicians says one about Senate rules while they are in the majority and a different one while they are in the minority?  Grow the hell up.  I am assuming because you run a successful blog that you are at least of the age where you have seen power passed between the parties more than once or twice.  Its what they do, and what their constituents  expect them to do when they gain power.  Are we to assume now that the Republicans have criticized Democrats for thinking about using reconciliation, that they will forever and ever forgo the practice?  Please.

        •  Reconciliation will be used to make changes to the health care bill that has already gotten the 60 votes required in the Senate

          >>> And MA threw vote # 60 out for the guy who promised to be #41

          So that point is a non-starter

        • All those reconciliation uses for Medicaid were BUDGET measures and reconciliation was appropriate and agreed upon by both sides.
          Quit trying to make the equivalence – its apples and oranges.

  • Devastating.

  • The Republicans think using reconciliation is wrong when the Democrats want to do it, and the Democrats think it’s wrong when the Republicans want to do it.   Hardly surprising.   But for the Democrats not to do it after it was done to them would be strategically unsound.

    • The Republicans think using reconciliation is wrong when the Democrats want to do it, and the Democrats think it’s wrong when the Republicans want to do it. Hardly surprising. But for the Democrats not to do it after it was done to them would be strategically unsound.

      (Ott Scerb is out of his office today. This post was produced by his specially designed “Moral Equivalence, Both Sides Do It Isn’t That Awful” automatic comment generator. Please excuse the lack of serious thought and the slavish Democrat excuse-making in the resulting output. Ott Scerb will resume posting about Sarah Palin’s full lips, ample bosom, and naughty librarian glasses when he is available. Until then, just remember that dense righties are always wrong. I decree it.)

    • But for the Democrats not to do it after it was done to them would be strategically unsound.

      >>> LOL!  *Chuckle*

      Would it be “strategically unsound” for them to ram through a bill the public has made clear they don’t want? (And more to the point, the public has shown great disgust for the backroom deal/shennanigan way they do it)

      You don’t even know what “strategy” is.

      LOL! *Chuckle*

      Hey, is the science still settled?

      • Not sticking up for erb but if he was using the phrase in a general context then I guess he’s right but if he’s referring specifically to obama care then he should reexamine his usage of the phrase.

    • Yeah, Erb, and the next time your children claim something is appropriate only because “Johnny and Debbie are doing it” you should agree with them – to do otherwise would be strategically unsound!

  • Based on the comments seen in the clip and some of those written here, a question:

    Are liberals amoral or immoral?

    Something else that irritates me about the libs with regard to this issue and minority rights in the Senate generally is their constant complaining that anything they don’t like is “unconstitutional”.  That wonderful document doesn’t say jack about how many votes are required to pass legislation in the Senate except in a couple of very specific cases (e.g. expelling a member, proposing and passing an amendment).  The 60 votes requirement is a Senate convention, as is the fillibuster.  Indeed, the whole notion that the Senate is supposed to be somehow more deliberative than the House is also a matter of tradition.  Again, the Constitution has nothing to say about these things.

    As for the idea of minority rights, I recall the dems’ DEMANDING that they have considerable powers when they lost the Congress back in ’94.  As with any other ideal, virtue, or morality, that went by the boards as soon as they took power.  democrats are into RULE, not rules.

  • Yes, the Democrats should definitely, and at the urging, and with the full approval, of Obama, pass their federal bureaucratic takeover of one-sixth of the U.S. economy against the wishes of a widening majority of Americans by using a parliamentary maneuver.

    That would tell U.S. citizens what they really need to know, as if they didn’t know already, about the Leftist cabal in charge in Washington: that they are not even interested in what Americans think, that they are in love with themselves and power, and that they are certifiably insane.

    That their methods have become unsound.

  • Are liberals amoral or immoral?

    Both.

    A great deal of the time they refuse to distinguish right from wrong, but even they do make the distinction they will just as often do what’s wrong. Liberals are inveterate liars. They think that because they believe themselves to be right that they are allowed to do anything they want and then lie about it and then lie about having lied about it. They are immersed in Doublethink.

    One of the reasons I recognize the value to QandO of Scott Erb’s infernal presence is that it’s like having the perfect liberal Leftist academic specimen on ice under a bell jar, and the fact that it’s so hard for him to keep his mouth shut, well, it’s just one of those gifts that keep on giving.