It's Officially Political War: Reid Informs McConnel Reconciliation is Imminent

[berni_mccoy]

Just announced on Hardball, Reid has given formal notice to McConnel that due to Republican's abuse of filibuster, the Democrats are going to pass HCR using Reconciliation. Chuck Todd declared that this is equivalent to declaring political war. To that I say, it's about damn time. So be it. To hell with bipartisanship. We tried. The GOP turned their noses up at it. They deserve to be left out of everything moving forward.

[harun]

1. About damn time, no one is asking them to be bi-partisan. They are

asking them to get something done.

[MindandSoul]

12. Bi-partisanship was a nice dream. . .but never existed! And we lost a lot of time pursuing a dream!

[jody]

2. How can someone abuse filibuster when the intent is for one person representing a minority to stand

in opposition to the tyranny of a majority?

The Senate was defined in our Constitution to protect a state's rights against an all-powerful federal government. A threat recognized by Jefferson and Madison the founders of our Democratic Party.

Jefferson and Madison drafted bills for Kentucky and Virginia respectively asserting Tenth Amendment rights against the federal government.

[laughingliberal]

6. The filibuster is not part of the Constitution

It is part of the Senate rules which they make for themselves. I think we went over 100 years without it.

[jody]

9. I've read our Constitution perhaps as many times as have you and debated its intent. If you read my

post with understanding you will discover I never said filibuster was part of the Constitution.

My other statements about state's rights, Jefferson, and Madison are correct.

[laughingliberal]

41. Sorry. Thought you were objecting to the use of reconciliation to pass the

amendment to the health care bills.

[jody]

45. My intent was to focus on how a simple majority could impose its opinion on the "natural, inherent,

unalienable Rights" of a minority. SCOTUS on one of those rights, “{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

A filibuster is part of the process that along with SCOTUS protects every minority.

[laughingliberal]

47. It would seem the Senate, itself, exists for the purpose of protecting minorities from the

tyranny of the majority. These days I think it's the tyranny of the minority from which we may need protection.

[jody]

51. Sounds logical "tyranny of the minority" but wouldn't that be the majorities view of any divisive,

polarizing right that prevails?

If a minority right prevails in the courts, then the majority claims "tyranny of the minority".

If a minority right loses in the courts, then the minority claims "tyranny of the majority".

How can Congress find bi-partisan solutions under such conditions?

[laughingliberal]

55. "How can Congress find bi-partisan solutions under such conditions?"

I have no idea. AFAICS they can't find any solutions, bipartisan or otherwise, under any circumstances. Certainly, the majority has been wrong, at times. Certainly the minority is. But there must be some mechanism by which legislation can be passed unless we feel we've got all the laws we need and can stop now. It is possible the filibuster serves a purpose but I still believe the Senate, itself, served that purpose in that the tiniest states have the same representation as the largest in that body. The debate we saw in the Senate came down to Senators representing around 3% of the population derailing one provision after another. That's a little bit of an overreach, I would think.

I fear we are approaching, if not already there, the state of being an ungovernable nation.

I don't know what the answer is but what we're doing does not seem to be benefiting anyone except those who are doing just fine with things just as they are. And that is a really, really tiny minority.

Any ideas?

[jody]

58. No ideas and at my advanced age I don't expect an answer in this life.

Have a great evening and may good fortune be yours in all that you do, :hi:

[laughingliberal]

61. Same here

and the very best to you, also. :-)

[laughingliberal]

23. delete, posted wrong level

[ljm2002]

62. I think you can tell when it's being abused pretty easily...

...basically the question is this: is it used for every damned bill or appointment that the majority wants? or is it used here and there for cases where the minority opposition party and/or their constituents feel very strongly about an issue?

Based on that criterion, I think we can fairly say that the filibuster rule is being abused.

[sharesunited]

3. Please don't cry foul when the nuclear option is used against us in the future.

[Beetwasher]

7. WTF Are You Talking About???? This Is Not The "Nuclear Option"

But thanks for pushing Repub talking points. And Repubs have used reconciliation WAAAAAY more than Dems already. You know that, right?

[sharesunited]

11. Do you have corrections to make to this Wikipedia article, then?

By all means, make them. As a service to me and the reading public.

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

[Beetwasher]

13. LOL! Wikipedia Is Your Source????

:rofl: Umm, jeenyus, the "Nuclear Option" was coined for nuking the fillibuster. I could give a shit what some dipshit Republican put on Wikipedia. But you? You're free to lap it up.

Reconociliation has been used, over and over and over again by the Republicans. Maybe you were sleeping for the past 10 years? Did you have a problem with it when it was used to pass Chimpy's disgusting tax cuts TWICE?

[sharesunited]

17. Was it used in violation of the Byrd Rule?

And what problem do you have with Wikipedia? Can you refer me to a better encyclopedic resource of general knowledge online? Wikipedia is not Conservapedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

[Beetwasher]

19. Ask Senator Byrd, Who Supports It's Use In This Instance

You know, the guy who wrote the rule. :rofl:

Oh, and ONLY Repubs are claiming it's in violation of the Byrd rule. You're in "good" company!

[sharesunited]

22. To sum up then, the approach being used now is ok with you in the future if you are in the minority?

Great! You will have nothing to regret.

[Beetwasher]

24. Who's "You"?

:shrug:

To sum up, you're a hypocrite who had no problems when Repubs rammed through Bush's tax cuts in this manner, but now that Dems are using it, it's a problem for you. Even though HCR was passed with a supermajority and these are relatively minor fixes that are totally budgetary in nature and not in violation of the Byrd rule according to the guy who wrote the Byrd rule. Got it.

[sharesunited]

27. If this was tax legislation, no I wouldn't.

I want to try to be consistent. It's important as a matter of integrity.

[Beetwasher]

30. Yeah, yeah, sure. Integrity? ROFL!

Yeah, I'm sure "you" have so much integrity.

[sharesunited]

35. Stop laughing and start making sense.

So far, you're not getting any point across other than you want something done on health care finance reform no matter what and no matter how.

Yes it is frustrating to get blocked. But you want to preserve the tools to do the blocking when the day comes.

And if we are prepared to destroy the process, then why aren't we blowing it up for something better?

[Beetwasher]

38. Your "Concern" Is Noted, And Transparent

Umm, this is not a fillibuster, jeenyus. It has nothing to do with the fillibuster. Reconciliation is not a "tool" for blocking anything.

Who's destroying any process??? How can anyone take the idiotic things you're posting seriously?

You deserve only mocking.

[sharesunited]

42. A distinction without a difference. Two routes around the same blockage.

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster.

The nuclear option allows a simple majority to override precedent and end a filibuster or other delaying tactic.

The only thing which makes them different is the Byrd Rule, which delimits use of reconciliation.

[Beetwasher]

44. Only In The Fevered Imaginations Of Concern Trolls Is There No Difference

HCR passed both houses with supermajorities. Deal with it. Reconciliation is being used, legitimately and properly according to everyone except Repubs, to make some relatively minor fixes that are all budget related.

You are in some fine company there in your oppositon to it's use.

[sharesunited]

52. Those are the choices? Concerned troll or unscrupulous partisan?

What happened to statesman? I'm not so cynical as to have abandoned that as a value.

[Beetwasher]

54. Those Are Yr False Choices

With exception of Repubs, every expert on the subject agrees that this use of recon is perfectly legit.

[sharesunited]

57. With a conference report to be submitted for a cloture vote? Legit is as legit does.

[Beetwasher]

59. Now yr just talking out of yr ass

HCR already passed the senate with a supermajority.

[sharesunited]

63. Sure, a version passed. One that can't pass the House without changes.

So the House passes its version and Reid attempts to skip a cloture vote on the conference report.

Legit? Byrd Rule compliant? Good enough finished product to not care? Worth forfeiting any valid complaint in the future when the other side wants to skip you?

Doubtful. To put it generously.

[Beetwasher]

64. Byrd Seems to think its Byrd rule compliant

Only u and repub bitching and whining about it, so who really cares. As if we don't use it the Repubs will refrain in the future?

Hell chimpy passed his tax cuts without even trying for cloture first.

[sharesunited]

65. What changed with Senator Byrd?

Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets.

Nobody cares but me and Republicans.

[Beetwasher]

66. HCR already passed with a supermajority

Get over it. Recon is for the minor bedgetary tweaks. Only repub bitch and whine about it. That's yr problem.

[laughingliberal]

48. I do think Medicare part D was passed under reconciliation

I believe it was more than tax legislation.

[sharesunited]

56. The Senate voted for cloture on the conference report in the case of Medicare Part D.

Think they are going to do that here? Probably not. They don't have the votes.

This is one big exercise in circumvention.

Principle is being sold out much too cheaply. What's on the table just isn't good enough to cut those corners.

[laughingliberal]

60. I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I don't see there is anything they are proposing to

change under reconciliation that does not meet the test of the Byrd rule. What's on the table isn't good enough, period. But I do not think the rules are being circumvented. COBRA and CHIP passed under reconciliation.

And I sure as hell don't support the House passing that Senate bill without making some changes to it.

I'm sick of the filibuster, anyway. As I discussed with another poster the reason for it is to give the minority a voice against the tyranny of the majority. The Senate, itself, was meant to do that. Every state, no matter its size, has the same representation in the Senate. I think that's sufficient.

[dionysus]

70. ROFL!

:spray:

[blondeatlast]

71. No, it's really kind of stupid when it comes to making public polic nty.

[laughingliberal]

25. The approach now being used has been used against us repeatedly in the Bush years

and I assume it will be again if we are in the minority. Not using it to pass our legislation isn't going to change that

[blogslut]

26. ...

I'm not part of this argument

[Beetwasher]

28. Why Should I?

I'm not making an idiotic claim that the nuclear option applies to reconciliation.

[blogslut]

33. ...

not the right time for defending Wikipedia

[Beetwasher]

39. No Worries

:toast:

[karynnj]

14. From your own link - the Republicans for several weeks have tried to redefine it.

"During the 111th Congress, opponents of Democratic legislative initiatives began referring to the budget reconciliation process as the nuclear option.<7> Reconciliation allows issues relating to the annual budget to be decided by a majority vote without the possibility of filibuster. Before late 2009, the term nuclear option had been used only to refer to the procedure outlined below."

Where they are completely dishonest is that they are then playing denunciations of the nuclear option by Obama and others - as if it meant the same think.

[thereismore]

8. Your position is very marginal on this board, you know that, right? nt

[Dappleganger]

16. For some reason, I have put that user on iggy...

no doubt because of other remarks which don't belong on DU as well.

[sharesunited]

37. More marginal than Stupak? Lieberman?

[thereismore]

53. they are not on this board. nt

[jody]

10. Excellent observation. What goes around, comes around. n/t

[Greyhound]

46. Where have you been for the last decade? The "nuclear option" refers to eliminating the filibuster

in the Senate rules.

Faux News are the only morans trying to re-brand reconciliation as "teh nukuler opshin", and you are following their lead?

The republikants used reconciliation to get everything the Idiot Frat Boy used to destroy our nation, the $1.7T millionaire tax cuts were ll passed through reconciliation, for example.

[leeroysphitz]

4. And so it goes...

[Beetwasher]

5. Gah! They Are NOT Passing HCR W/ Reconciliation, It ALREADY PASSED W/ A SUPERMAJORITY!!!

Not yelling at you Berni, I just hate how this is being framed. Gah!

[berni_mccoy]

18. This is a good point. But to merge the two bills, they need to pass an amendment

which would normally be subject to the filibuster. It's easier for the Media to frame it this way (I'm no way endorsing it as correct though). You are correct.

[upi402]

15. Good. elbows out time

make the Retuhgs spit Chikletts.

[kctim]

20. What prevents the GOP

from doing the same thing to get rid of this HCR if they take control of everything in 2012?

[Greyhound]

21. Are you kidding? Their masters will never allow them to get rid of this,

This is the biggest payday anybody has ever seen before. Wall Street's gonna have to get all creative again to top this rip-off.

[kctim]

31. Not kidding at all

I know the Republicans are going to use this in the coming elections. Saying how wrong it was to 'force it down our throats' and all. So, is there some law or something that would prevent them from using recon to get rid of it?

I don't subscribe to all the 'corporate masters' nonsense.

[Greyhound]

50. 'Get rid of', as in repeal, they can't without a 2/3 majority even if they wanted to. But they can

make it even worse for it's victims, this is a squeeze equivalent to the income tax that goes straight to private corporations.

One things for sure, we're all going to see.

[laughingliberal]

32. Nothing prevents them from doing that, anyway

However, I would assume they would only be able to get rid of the same parts we are able to pass under reconciliation.

[kctim]

34. Really? Wow.

Thank you for the info.

[berni_mccoy]

36. You do realize they did this many times during the Bush Administration?

They abused reconciliation whenever they could. That will not change in the future regardless if the Dems use it or not.

[kctim]

69. I couldn't find anything similiar to this one

where one party would be using reconciliation to eliminate such a huge program that was not in full effect yet, so I was curious if there were procedures or something that prevented such a thing.

And yes, I do realize that the Republicans would still use this tactic regardless of what the Dems did.

[Arkana]

29. The gauntlet is thrown.

At last.

[yodoobo]

40. We should just remove the filibuster provision

and be done with it.

I'm tired of being abused by it.

[sabrina 1]

43. It better have a PO or they will have a lot explaining to do.

All of a sudden, reconciliation is possible. It was supposedly NOT possible just weeks ago when we suggested it. Now that it is, I expect they will just it right and include a strong PO or they will be held accountable by those who elected them.

[Mike 03]

49. As I have said consistently, GO FOR IT. Cram it down their damned throats.

We have nothing to lose, and our integrity will be etched in history books.

This is the right thing to do, and if we lose on this, we know that it is time to give up on politics.

[grahamhgreen]

67. We better get a public option or Medicare expansion, then. nt

[Festivito]

68. We're used to being at war. Why be scared now?

We have a war with something good on the horizon for once. Not just some weird phrase like: "They hate us for our freedoms" or "We're protecting our way of life" meaning our toys.

This one is so we can say that we no longer have to go to fund raisers for kids who found their cancer a little too late.