The sky isn't falling!
Thank goodness. My understanding was that if the Nuclear Option had been voted on the Capitol dome would explode. Literally.
An odd emotion for the press to promote, since a quick scan of the Constitution and Lexis-Nexis, not to mention a rudimentary understanding of politics and government would expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats on the issue.
For instance, the filibuster is not enshrined in any document, much less the Constitution. It was first employed in 1806, and first curtailed in 1917, when cloture (Senate Rule XXII) was introduced. Tradition being important to the Democrat’s position, let us note that the filibuster was used to slow legislation through extended debate. Using it as a tool to block the Advise and Consent of the Senate happened first 2001 (the Abe Fortas “filibuster” can be argued either way). So the Democrats’ use of the filibuster to block judges flouted Senate tradition.
Another silly notion was the claim that we would lose a check on the Executive branch. There was never an issue of “checks and balances,” since the term refers to branches of government, of course, not political parties.
More pernicious were the statements made by Sen. Russ Feingold on C-SPAN today. He made the point that the rules were being violated by the Republicans. Just how is changing a Senate rule a violation of Senate rules? It makes me wonder when an intelligent individual like Feingold lets his liberal bias lead him into making such a solecism.
An odd emotion for the press to promote, since a quick scan of the Constitution and Lexis-Nexis, not to mention a rudimentary understanding of politics and government would expose the hypocrisy of the Democrats on the issue.
For instance, the filibuster is not enshrined in any document, much less the Constitution. It was first employed in 1806, and first curtailed in 1917, when cloture (Senate Rule XXII) was introduced. Tradition being important to the Democrat’s position, let us note that the filibuster was used to slow legislation through extended debate. Using it as a tool to block the Advise and Consent of the Senate happened first 2001 (the Abe Fortas “filibuster” can be argued either way). So the Democrats’ use of the filibuster to block judges flouted Senate tradition.
Another silly notion was the claim that we would lose a check on the Executive branch. There was never an issue of “checks and balances,” since the term refers to branches of government, of course, not political parties.
More pernicious were the statements made by Sen. Russ Feingold on C-SPAN today. He made the point that the rules were being violated by the Republicans. Just how is changing a Senate rule a violation of Senate rules? It makes me wonder when an intelligent individual like Feingold lets his liberal bias lead him into making such a solecism.
posted by Rance Fasoldt at 1:52 PM
0 comments
