« The "Right to life" story that we missed | Main | Now THAT'S campaign finance reform. »

March 27, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200d83458e64b69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Notes on the Nuclear Option -- Part VII:

» More Media Sleight of Hand from Dogged Blog
Pay attention to the man behind the curtain. [Read More]

» Studying the "Nuclear Option" from Swing State Project
While Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist is whipping the zealots into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy over the GOP plot for absolute power, people who care about the Constitution, checks and blances, seperation of power, minority rights, and the institu... [Read More]

» Studying the "Nuclear Option" from Swing State Project
While Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist is whipping the zealots into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy over the GOP plot for absolute power, people who care about the Constitution, checks and blances, seperation of power, minority rights, and the institu... [Read More]

» Studying the "Nuclear Option" from Swing State Project
While Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist is whipping the zealots into a foaming-at-the-mouth frenzy over the GOP plot for absolute power, people who care about the Constitution, checks and blances, seperation of power, minority rights, and the institu... [Read More]

Comments

In fact, I've noticed recently that the Republicans often don't even send anyone over to the House floor to debate the rule. They just continue to cede time to the Dems until the Dems run out of speakers and then the designated handler from the Rules Committee sums up for the Repubs and they're done.

Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, absolutely.

The outcome of a rules debate, no matter how restrictive the rule is, hasn't been in doubt for some time, whether under Democratic control or Republican. And that's all the evidence you need of what happens to a legislative body where the rules are subject to change, by majority vote, at any time. Everybody knows it's a foregone conclusion that the majority will not only win the game, but will stack the deck in its favor with a rule that makes it impossible for the minority to prevail -- or just as often, not even to be heard.

Keep this in mind next time you hear a Republican whine that Democrats are attacking the president's Social Security plan unfairly, because after all, they haven't offered an alternative. Why kid yourselves, folks? The "alternative" wouldn't be given a vote under the rule anyway.

The fact that House Republicans don't even bother to come to the floor for a rules debate anymore only puts an exclamation point on this. Not only will there be no debate on the underlying bill, but there won't even be a debate about the fact that there's no debate. This is what it looks like when there are no protections for minority rights. Or more specifically, what kainah mentions is what it looks like when the majority stops caring that there are no protections for minority rights.

Tell me the difference, anyone who's interested, in what would prevent the same result from obtaining in the Senate? The "promise" of a Majority Leader on his way out the door not to apply the nuclear option to legislation? That's all?

Even assuming that Frist's word is good, what stops the next guy? Or some coalition of 50 without Frist?

Nothing.

You're getting the word out, Kagro. I hope you checked today's Dauo Report!

Yeah, I did! It was revealed to me in a secret meeting of the TNH bristerhood (we have brothers and sisters, both) this morning. What a nice bit of recognition. Very cool to be up there with the others whose writing I read all the time.

That's bloggin' for you.

And in case you're wondering, we mostly talk about our readers behind their backs at those meetings. Well, we used to. I guess I blew that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad