Originally posted by Ramo
View Post
I don't know or really care what Poly had to say about it, and obviously any individual may be more consistent than others on the same side of the aisle, but in the mainstream press there was a huge amount of whining by Dem legislators and pundits for at least a full news cycle every time it happened, especially in 2005. I also distinctly remember how the phrase "nuclear option" was thrown around by the Dems almost ubiquitously back then (almost as if ordered by a talking points memo), only to see the same people now stick to "reconciliation" or "fast-track" in amusingly Orwellian fashion.
Personally I'd like to see the filibuster permanently abolished anyway instead of this silly case-by-case basis, because 1) there's no constitutional basis for it whatsoever, 2) most "discussion" needed for any major bill is already done amongst committees, off-hill drafters, backroom negotiations, etc. nowadays, making floor "debate" virtually obsolete except as mere theater, 3) our party system has become too hopelessly divided for continued floor debate to have significant impact on vote outcomes regardless, and 4) the fact that technically a mere majority can circumvent it with reconciliation makes it a joke to begin with, doing the harm of inviting a flurry of hypocritical political posturing every time it's used and making the whole process more cynical than it already is. Even so, I can't help but acknowledge that it has benefited and harmed both sides at different times, and that it'd be the height of hypocrisy for either to complain about it.
Comment