According to Ariana — formerly Right, now Left, Always Nutty — Huffington,
Right now, somewhere in the White House, administration strategists are hatching plans to go to war. Battle plans are being drawn. Timing and tactics are being finalized. A nuclear option is even being openly discussed.
The designated target? Iran? Syria? North Korea?
No, much closer to home: the United States Senate.
She refers, of course, to the “nuclear option” to override Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees. She regards this effort not only as a “parliamentary dirty trick,” not only as a maneuver that “would drive a stake through the heart of the Senate’s longstanding commitment — indeed one of its founding purposes — to defending the rights of the minority,” but also as an “underhanded scheme to kneecap the Constitution.”
Presumably Ms. Puffington has found a right to filibuster in her conveniently deconstructed copy of the Constitution.
According to Ariana — formerly Left, now Right, Always Nutty — Huffington
John, you got the first two reversed. However, the third item is dead on!
Funny, when the Democrats were in charge they weren’t so fond of the filibuster. The Republicans are only considering the ending of the filibuster for judicial nominations, not for all bills. Their argument is that the Constitution specifically prohibits the filibustering of judicial nominations. Whether that is true or not is problematical. However, there is no provision in the Constitution that mandates the use of a filibuster. As you indicated, it is not even mentioned in the Constitution.
Oops. I typed that backwards. I’m going to fix it now, so the first of your comment will no longer look like it makes sense. But thanks for catching this quickly…
‘Presumably Ms. Puffington has found a right to filibuster in her conveniently deconstructed copy of the Constitution.’
Where does her argument depend on that?
Me:
‘Presumably Ms. Puffington has found a right to filibuster in her conveniently deconstructed copy of the Constitution.’
actus:
Where does her argument depend on that?
How about:
1. The title (“Will The GOP Nuke The Constitution”)
2. All the talk about the structure of govt. the Founding Fathers designed.
3. Claiming that stopping filibusters is “an underhanded scheme to kneecap the Constitution.”
4. Her call for “Mutually Assured Legislative Destruction” to protect, among other things, “the Constitution.”
I suppose her only argument would be a separation of powers one. A structural argument. There’s no need for an explicit ‘right’ to filibuster. Just like there is no ‘right’ to judicial review.
Though she does spend a lot of time talking about how this is an attack on the senate as well as the constitution.
Looking for some background information on the “nuclear option,” I found an enlightening article, supported by a couple of other sources. It seems the procedure has only been employed once, and that by Senate Democrats who held a narrow majority in 1975 and wanted to reduce the number of votes necessary to end a filibuster. To no avail, Robert Byrd cautioned his fellow Democrats:
“The day may come, although I hope it will not be in my time, when we will be in the minority and it will take only 51 senators from the other side of the aisle to stop debate immediately, without one word, on some matter which we may consider vital to our states or to the nation.”
How many times does this scenario have to play out before the Left recognizes that all the precedents it sets, the laws it passes, and the bureaucracies it constructs will be used for “evil” when the opposition is in power?
Nels – GREAT find! Thanks for sharing it.
Of course the Left is not alone in abandoning principle in favor of a what’s-good-for-my-side instrumentalism. Still, although one can easily make too much of this point (indeed, I’m sure many think I often make too much of it), the contemporary Left does contain a prominent strain of belief that rejects principle in principle (Stanley Fish, postmodernism, relativism, etc.).
This represents something of a shift, since historically it was much more often the Right that opposed principle (usually portrayed as “abstract” principles) … frequently in the name of tradition.
Given time Ms Huffington may become the liberal, Affirmative Action supporting, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, labor supporting, populist, progressive Republican candidate that Cobra seeks.
And she can do it on someone else’s money.