Red State is so stupid that they’re amusing. They are invoking the Declaration of Independence and calling for an insurrection because the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the decisions of the Medicare Advisory Board (whose mission was expanded by the Senate health care bill) can be exempt from repeal or amendment. In other words, to protect the independence and integrity of the Medicare oversight board, the legislation requires a true supermajority of 67 senators to overrule their decisions. But Reid put this bill through at the 60-vote threshold. So, in effect, Red State is arguing that Reid has changed the rules of the Senate even though changing the rules of the Senate normally requires 67 votes, too. The parliamentarian disagrees with this logic, but that’s really beside the point. Giving the Medicare Advisory Board (better known as ‘Death Panels’) some freedom from political influence is reason to “dissolve the political bands” to the federal government and start a guerrilla war? That’s just funny.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
5 Comments
Recent Posts
- Day 14: Louisiana Senator Approvingly Compares Trump to Stalin
- Day 13: Elon Musk Flexes His Muscles
- Day 12: While Elon Musk Takes Over, We Podcast With Driftglass and Blue Gal
- Day 11: Harm of Fascist Regime’s Foreign Aid Freeze Comes Into View
- Day 10: The Fascist Regime Blames a Plane Crash on Nonwhite People
Heh, heh now our evil Islamofascist plot to commit genocide on old people who watch Fox News can proceed unhindered.
BUT FIRST, they all get manditory frontal lobotomies!
Oh, wait….
RedState “to the barricades” folks are just about as serious about that as lefty “to the barricades” folks.
And just about as stupid. The only time taking it to the barricades has ever gained anything is when the bulk of the working population plus the police plus the military agree with you. Case study: East Germany. Contrary case study: Iran.
Really? Where were this assholes during Bush/Cheney?
Reconciliation or the nuclear option allowed a simple majority to enforce it’s will within certain bounds and was used a number of times when the Republicans controlled Congress, so what’s the difference?
What bothered me then, when the nuclear option was an issue, was the ability to use fewer votes to change what normally required more. The Republicans had essentially used the rules to vote themselves more votes than they had. And being from Colorado, I’ve never been happy with Ken Salazar’s decision to join the gang of fourteen.
The ability of the majority to ram proposals down our throats — or in this case radical judges — struck me as offensive, and the reason it was so offensive is that the judges were political reactionaries with questionable legal principles. I didn’t expect that we’d go back to the days when unanimous consent was used to confirm judges but having a judge that was acceptable to the opposition seemed like a good reason to preserve the filibuster.
Fast forwarding to today, the threat of the filibuster is now used to veto (so to speak) any broad based legislation. Narrowly crafted legislation still makes it through and serves the interests of special interests but the public interest is not served.
Talk of nullification is hardly new, and it’s about par for the course with the Republican coalition when it’s composed of these elements. I’m reminded of pro-slavery forces in 1850s Kansas. It’s a toxic stew.