51 Vote ‘Nuclear Option’ Is ‘Arrogant’ Power Grab Against the Founder’s Intent

[Jhhnn]

Didn't read the articles?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ez...history_of_reconcil.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124009985

I could be wrong but the Rs used it 14 of the last 19 times. Are you saying the Ds were sitting idle and the Rs used it anyway?

Neither of the articles offers that Dems "fought" reconciliation, at all, merely that it was used and that doing so was unremarkable... you're making attributions that you haven't substantiated... It's been a very, very long time since either party had 60 votes in the senate. Dems could have been obstructionist about any of that legislation, filibustered prior to any vote, as Repubs now do as routinely as wiping their asses, but they didn't... Repubs are desperate and stubborn, sore losers, doing their dead level best to prevent any real healthcare reform at all, and now they're just throwing out anything they can at the Dems, up to and including their own poo...

They went from crowing about a "permanent majority" to having their butts whipped, badly, and they haven't figured out why, because they're in denial about their failed philosophy and failure to govern constructively. They haven't changed a bit- they're just digging a deeper bunker.

Reconciliation is a normal and mundane part of the legislative process and has been for a very, very long time. The voters denied them the opportunity to govern or even to filibuster w/o some sellout Dems, but they'll use what they've got to try to sway public opinion, rally the Faithful. Can't lead, won't follow, so they'll just try to get in the way.

 

[woolfe9999]

Possibly, but reconciliation is turning into the nuclear option. From its inception as a tool to ensure that the Senate can pass budget bills it is evolving into something that can be justified to pass any bill with any tax or spending provisions - that it to say, any bill of any major impact, since Congress cannot reject the temptation to fiddle with the tax code and fine tune their winners and losers lists in practically every bill, and almost any bill of import is going to have spending over and above that allocated in the budget bills. Thus the filibuster is probably doomed. Raw political power > bipartisanship.

That depends on whether the non-partisan Senate parlimentarian is going to broaden the rules for some arbitrary reason. A bill having a spending and/or tax component doesn't cut it. Every portion of the bill must pertain to budget.

The only reason it's possible with the health bill is because the core bill, which couldn't possibly have been subject to reconciliation, has already been pased by the Senate by 60 votes. Accordingly, they can now amend certain tax and spending portions of the bill using reconciliation, IF the House first passes the core bill as is. If the core bill hadn't already passed the 60 votes, this procedure wouldn't be possible.

I wouldn't be too quick to assume that reconciliation, as a procedure, is being broadened in scope.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

Possibly, but reconciliation is turning into the nuclear option.

No, it's not.

Filibuster is being turned from 'the right of a Senator to extend debate on a bill he feels strongly about' to be used rarely into a new requirement for any significant bill to need 60 votes to pass.

Do you want to make the votes need to pass any vote in the Senate 60 instead of 50? Then do that. Don't abuse the filibuster to get the same result, but expect it to go back to 50 if you get power.

From its inception as a tool to ensure that the Senate can pass budget bills it is evolving into something that can be justified to pass any bill with any tax or spending provisions - that it to say, any bill of any major impact, since Congress cannot reject the temptation to fiddle with the tax code and fine tune their winners and losers lists in practically every bill, and almost any bill of import is going to have spending over and above that allocated in the budget bills. Thus the filibuster is probably doomed. Raw political power > bipartisanship.

Not needing 60 votes to pass any bill - which has always been the case outside recent Republican minorities abusing the filibuster - isn't 'raw political power'.

You can say raw political power was Republicans saying 'you are filibustering a handful of the most radical judicial appointees out of hundreds? THen we'll destroy the filibuster'.

But you don't say that, do you, of course.

 

[wirelessenabled]

Both parties are hypocrites about this.

When the Dems were filibustering, the Repub talking point was "straight up or down vote!" while the Dems were saving America. Dems claimed the nuclear option would be an outrage.

Now the Repubs filibuster, claim they're saving America and say a straight up or down vote isn't needed after all. Dems have lost all their outrage against going nuclear.

+1

 

[Craig234]

Both parties are hypocrites about this.

When the Dems were filibustering, the Repub talking point was "straight up or down vote!" while the Dems were saving America. Dems claimed the nuclear option would be an outrage.

Now the Repubs filibuster, claim they're saving America and say a straight up or down vote isn't needed after all. Dems have lost all their outrage against going nuclear.

Since you got a '+1', I'll comment on this.

Where in your post is any acknowledgment that the Republicans are the first paty to abuse the filibuster so much that it's not being used as intended but used as a 'minority veto' to block almost anything?

That's a big difference between the parites.

Democrats used the filibuster to block a handful of the most extreme Judicial nominees of Bush after aspproving nearly all of them - despite Republicans' very obstructinist blocking of Clinton nominees.

Republicans did all kinds of games to block Clinton nominees in many ways, including fighting against his power of recess appointment - used heavily by Bush to get around Senate confirmation - and evenm changing the rules to be able to block nominees far more easily while they were in power - a rule change they reversed as soon as Bush took office.

But Democrats still approved far more of Bush's nominees. But the few they blocked were too many for Republicans - who threatneed to destroy the filibuster forever to get their way.

THeir threat got them their way as Democrats agreed to let even more nominees be approved instead of the filibuster being destroyed.

Now Republicans are lying - with you repeaqting the lie - that Democrats' possible use of RECONCILIATION - a part of the rules and one mostly used by Republicans - os the same thing as the 'nuclear option'.

Democrats have a far better reason to use the nuclear option, aainst Republicans who are abusing the filibuster at record levels to block their very ability to govern, than Republicans ever did over a few nominees.

But even while they'd have reason to do so, they aren't threatetning that now, despite your claim - they're talking about reconciliation that's not the same thing.

 

[Zorkorist]

I thought this thread was about Nuclear Power. :up:

Fuck ya'll :down:

-John