Rules Are For Suckers

by Jason at 6:03 am on November 17th, 2004 in Congressional Man Date

Isn’t it wonderful when our elected officials act like spoiled children? Take the Republicans in Congress, for example. They have majorities in both houses. They have a re-elected president they can count on for support. They pretty much have the ability to pass any legislation they choose. But, occasionally, they run into rules that get in the way of their goal of absolute power.

The solution? Change the rules, of course.

• In 1993, House Republicans adopted a rule that barred representatives from holding onto leadership roles when they have been indicted by a grand jury. The rule was conceived and passed because of ethical lapses by the then-Democratic House leadership. But now that Tom DeLay is in the cross-hairs of an impending indictment, the Republicans have proposed a rule change so he can stay in power. Hypocritical? Sure…but didn’t you know that rules only apply to Democrats, and not the party of “moral values”?

• With an opening in the Supreme Court seen to be imminent, a lot of discussion has been made regarding the Democrats’ use of a filibuster to block Bush judicial appointees. With the way the issue has been spun in the media and on the campaign, you would think that the Democrats have obstructed every Bush nominee. But that’s not the case at all — while ten nominees were blocked, that pales in comparison to the 200+ judges that were confirmed in Dubya’s first term. But even a 95% success rate isn’t enough for Senate majority leader Bill Frist, who has hinted that he will change the Senate rules to take the filibuster option off the table for Democrats, leaving the majority party to push through all of its nominations unopposed.

These are just the two most current examples of Republican rules-bending during the Bush regime. Many will remember the Medicare reform that only passed after congressional leaders held open the vote hours past the usual time limits, so that congressional members could be cajoled into voting for it.

The bottom line is this — with such a Republican concentration of power, they can pretty much do whatever they want, and they’ve decided that following the rules matters less than absolute control. It’s their game, it’s their ball and they pick the referees. Democracy at work.

Comments

  1. evan wrote:

    I caught Schumer on “This Week” w/ George Stephanopoloponolous (I refuse to spell his name right - it’s too damn long) and he made the exact same point regarding the judicial nominees. You have to hand it to the Republican leadership though - they really know how to boil an issue down to a sound byte; it’s a shame that their media talking points are pretty careless with the truth.

    Then there’s the related hypocricy over judicial activism: Republican’s love to use that term to describe liberalism run amok (the Great Society, Roe v. Wade)…but if a federal judge wants to stop vote-counting in a certain state that’s shaped like a wang to tilt an election to one of their guys, then that’s not activism at all - that’s “a close reading of the Constitution.”