3 ms·
I'm shocked that people are shocked that the party in power will bend the rules to serve their own ends. I'm sure if you look back to the heady days of the Bush
by conover 17y ago
I'm shocked that people are shocked that the party in power will bend the rules to serve their own ends. I'm sure if you look back to the heady days of the Bush administration, you would find opinion pieces written in the New York Times railing against how "we have entered a political wonderland" when the tax cuts, etc. were passed.
- hga 17y agoYour argument might have more weight if you could point to a process abuse akin to "deeming" a bill as being passed without actually voting on it, especially if that bill is signed into law as required by the Senate parliamentarian but the Senate never manages to pass the reconciliation bill (the only one the House would actually vote on). In the history of the Republic I can't remember anything even close to this.
- sethg 17y agoIf you don’t remember it happening before, it’s because nobody has made this much noise about it before. When Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, for example, this very process was used 90 times. See the link I posted in my other comment.
- hga 17y agoA process of "deeming" a bill passed without actually voting on it? As I noted in my reply, "self-executing" is a red herring.
- byteCoder 17y ago"tu quoque" (party A did this so that makes it right for party B) is not a valid argument. If it was unconstitutional then, it's still unconstitutional now (even if it's now a tradition). (Cf. Gephardt Rule)