Democrats say it is an arrogant power grab against the founders intent?

Or not. As evidenced by this thread and its originator.

 

AS has been pointed out, passing things through reconciliation is not the nuclear option. But if you want to see real hypocrisy on the issue look about the 5:15 - 5:30 in the video. Or also at the very start of the video.

<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc330d54" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=10,0,0,0"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640"><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=35359330&width=420&height=245"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="opaque" /><embed name="msnbc330d54" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=35359330&width=420&height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="opaque" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit msnbc.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com">breaking news</a>, <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032507" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">world news</a>, and <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032072" style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">news about the economy</a></p>

 

Let me also commend everyone for not taking basso's bait and attempt to derail the thread.

 

Others posters have already pointed out the differences between Reconciliation and "The Nuclear Option". I will agree there is some hypocrisy among both parties in regard to their opinions of the Senate rules but I don't see anything unconstitutional about Reconciliation and as many posters know I am one who has supported the filibuster as being in line with the Founders intent.

 

So, the calling out of Dems as hypocrites only serves to highlight the hypocrisy of the wingnuts making the charge. The Party of No strikes again...

 

unfortunately Fox nation will just move on to the next lie.

 

Ha ha...

On a football forum I frequent somebody posted this exact same video, and I wondered why it was all of a sudden worth posting since I hadn't heard any talk of using the real "nuclear option" to pass health care. I commented there that reconciliation and the nuclear option were not the same thing. Then I come here and see basically the exact same thread.

Good times.

 

I think on This Week George Will said the founding fathers created the filibuster or something like that.

 

That FOX news bit is really outrageous. Sadly not altogether surprising, but utterly outrageous. People who watch that channel are dumb. No ifs ands or buts about it.

 

Look at Palin. There is a certain part of the population that believes intelligence, and well thought out commentary, opinions, and messages are bad.

Those are the domain of the elitist, and they would prefer to hold up ignorance and lack of critical thinking as some kind of badge of honor.

 

Palin is the pinnacle of this movement from the wingnut right, moreso than Bush by a mile. However, what really disturbs me is that somebody is doing the manipulation in the background. You know the Palin's of the world are not orchestrating this onslaught of media falsehood and disingenuous sloganeering - so who's driving this message? With what aim?

 

This was debated in another thread. While the filibuster isn't in the Constitution it was known to the founding fathers and the foundation for it was laid down in the very first Senate and the tactic codified in the Senate in 1806

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

[rquoter]In the House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limited the duration of debate. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until an 1890 rule eliminated it. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes.

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[29] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[29] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.
[/rquoter]

The first Senate filibuster didn't happen until 1837 but up until 1917 there wasn't even a rule for cloture.

In regard to the article you post:
[rquoter]The Founding Fathers did not intend a filibuster. They spelled out in the Constitution exactly where they wanted supermajorities, reserving them for unique matters such as treaties, impeachment and overriding a presidential veto.

Otherwise, they believed in majority rule.
[/rquoter]

I agree with George Will on this as history doesn't support that the Founders didn't intend a filibuster. The tactic of continuous debate goes back to the Roman Senate and from the very earliest Congresses they clearly understood the possibility of it. Further from the Federalist Papers and other writings its clear the Founders were for the most part suspicious of direct democracy and very concerned about protecting the minority (viewpoint) from being run over by the majority. The Constitution explicitly empowers the House and Senate to make their own rules regarding debate and given the likelyhood of the filibuster if they didn't agree with it they likely would've written it into the Constitution, as they did for other supermajority rules, or at least in the early Congresses set up the rules to prevent it.

All that said I agree that the current use of it is unprecedented but instead of doing things like the Nuclear Option they should bring back the actual filibuster and force people to actually filibuster than just threaten.

 

How does a thread about the use of the filibuster in the US Senate turn into a Sarah Palin bashing opportunity?

We clearly have a number of posters on this board who appear to be thoroughly obsessed with this woman. That means she is really important to you guys in some way. Hmmm. Interesting.

 

i wish someone would pass the line item veto. seems like Obama will be a two termer so it is a good time for the dems to do it.

 

In any case, here are some very clear and unequivocal statements that leading Democrats made about the use of the filibuster and the 'Nuclear Option' during the Bush Administration (from the OP):

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/hJNRgcihYQI%2Em4v" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="364" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

By the Democrats own words, the filibuster is essential, and the use of the 'Nuclear Option' is intolerable and a clear demonstration of the "arrogance of power".

In any case, the Senate is not going to use reconciliation with regards to health care. This is a wet dream of the far left, and nothing more.

Also, I remember Obama and the Democrats saying they were going to focus "like a laser" on the economy now. Whatever happened to that? Instead, we appear to have just returned straight back to the health care debate again.

 

Since a nuclear option isn't being discussed here, whatever they said about a nuclear option isn't hypocritical.

What they said on the filibuster also isn't hypocritical since they aren't intending to strike it from the allowed procedures in the Senate. However the way the GOP uses the filibuster after what they've said (please see the clip with the GOP moaning and saying how awful using the filibuster is.) is hypocritical.

 

Quiet please, adults are talking.

FB - don't feed the trolls.

 

Well, the Democrats own words speak to the issue in a manner that is so clear and direct that any reasonable person will be able to easily understand. If these statements are confusing to you for some reason, and your response leaves the impression that they are, then I just do not know what to tell you. The statements in this video are so clear, concise and unequivocal, that no further interpretation is really required. I am sorry that this is so hard for you.

 

Yes they are and any reasonable person would know that democrats were talking about something completely different. The nuclear option as defined by republicans has nothing to do with reconciliation.

but you know that

 

Mark:

Any reasonable person would know that FB and mark were feeding trolls. The discussion as defined by mojoman has nothing to do with honest debate.

but you know that