Thursday, February 25, 2010

Whose ox is that?

Wait a minute, whose ox is being gored?



Many of you will remember that I was in favor of the "nuclear option," and point out my hypocrisy for pointing out their hypocrisy. But I was in favor of the nuclear option only on judicial nominations. The Constitution gives the President, subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, the power to appoint judges. I believed that all Presidential nominations were entitled to a Yes/No vote in the Senate and I still believe it1.

Legislation is different.

So that's my defense. How does Barack Obama or Chuck Schumer or Harry Reid, given the comments that they made four years ago, justify ramming through this wildly unpopular, hugely expensive and transformative legislature on a simple majority partisan basis after their paeans to the Senate's function as a bulwark against anti-majoritarian tyranny?



1 - I also suggested that the filibuster on judges was a restriction which effectively applied only to Republican Presidents, as a Democratic President attempting to seat a judge with more than 50 but fewer than 60 Democratic votes would have the full support of the media as they changed the rules to do away with the filibuster. Watching the lack of outrage as the media contemplates the Democrats using "reconciliation" to force through Obamacare, is there any doubt that that's true?

Labels: , , ,

|

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Comment?

<< Home

Links to this post

Links to this post:

Create a Link