A power grab in the House was fought off by a dedicated minority. Unfortunately, the Senate seems to be determined to roll over.

Yeah, about time the rupublicans put a stop to those democrat terrorists and their unamerican opposition of deficit spending.

Adrasteia, that is one of the lamest strawman arguments I have seen here in a long time......and thats saying something.

I'll assume you were similarly concerned about the Consitution when the Senate Repubs threatened the nuclear option on Dem threats to filibuster presidential nominees to SCOTUS?

What clause of the Constutition establishes the filibuster?

"What clause of the Constutition establishes the filibuster?"

What clause of the Constitution establishes the Motion to Recommit?

FWIW, Sam Dinkin denigrated the "Nuclear Option" back in 2005. I recall at the time that I wasn't too concerned merely because the Republicans would have needed to overcome the filibuster in order to deploy the "nuclear option".

I'll assume you were similarly concerned about the Consitution when the Senate Repubs threatened the nuclear option

The general principle is exactly correct. The "neolibertarian" position is that it's only unconstitutional when Democrats do it. (The neolibertarian ticket: Nugent-Simberg '08!) According to the Washington Times, "Republicans credit former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay for insisting that his members vote no on all motions to recommit in the years their party was in power. " So the Republicans are complaining about potential restrictions on a procedure that the Democrats didn't allow them at all.

If I were Steny Hoyer, I would be sorely tempted to announce loudly, "Fine, my Republican friends, let's go back to doing it your way. No more motions to recommit for you !"

There is that and the fact that neither the germaneness rule or the motion to recommit are in the Constitution.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070418-112641-4641r.htm

So the Republicans are complaining about potential restrictions on a procedure that the Democrats didn't allow them at all.

That is, the Republicans are complaining about restrictoins on a procedure that they didn't allow the Democrats at all.

Simple comments:

The Republican Congress did authorize deficit spending. No doubt about that, and of course, conservatives and especially liberterians held them accountable in 2006. So Adrasteia, what's your point? Rand's point is that Democrats were trying to prevent anyone from knowing who voted for increased spending and taxes. We know Republicans increased spending because that information wasn't hidden from the American people. It should never be hidden.

The "Nuclear Option"... The ability for a simple majority to vote on an issue requiring only a simple majority. Why is this scary to people who purport to be "liberals".

"The "Nuclear Option"... The ability for a simple majority to vote on an issue requiring only a simple majority. Why is this scary to people who purport to be "liberals"

Of course, and as I'm sure you're fully aware, that wasn't the point (of my question to Rand, anyway).

For what it's worth,

I don't have a problem with the use of filibusters, assuming it actually IS a filibuster. I do have a problem with some senater holding things up with a 'filibuster' that consists of him or her just threatening one.

A true filibuster demonstrates commitment. You are down on the floor speaking. You might be reading from the Topeka phone book or you might be quoting Shakespear. Shoot, you might even be making an eloquent speech on behalf of your position. But you are speaking. These "I'm declaring a filibuster so you can't do anything even though I'm not making any effort or missing any meals" deals demonstrate nothing.

You wanna filibuster? Fine. Get your ass down there on the senate floor and start talking. Otherwise, quit wasting our time.

Of course, and as I'm sure you're fully aware, that wasn't the point (of my question to Rand, anyway).

You're right Andy, I rarely grasp your point. My point was why would Rand, or any person claiming liberterian (or liberal) beliefs get excited by what was deemed the "nuclear option"? Fuloydo expands on my point in that the issue wasn't to stop a true filibuster, but to stop the tradition of simply threatening a filibuster to prevent legislation.

The only nuclear aspect was that if the Republican Senate used the option, the next Democrat Senate (now seated) would be certain to expand the precedence to prevent a true filibuster. Indeed, on the House side, Nancy Pelosi did just that by saying in the first 100 hours, she didn't want to entertain any debate from Republicans, because she new she already had the votes (not that it worked out that way, but she tried).

yikes... that last sentence was bad... new = knew...

Point is Nancy, in the House, didn't care what Republicans thought about her agenda. She admitted she planned to cram it down their throats, and she was willing to change the rules to make it happen. A Republican initiative to do the same is referred to as the "nuclear option". The only difference is that the nuclear option allows debate to continue rather than be held up by a threat of filibuster.