Yglesias, apparently, missed Schoolhouse Rock when he was a kid and can't seem to locate the official rules of the Senate.
Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless three-fifths of the Senate (60 out of 100 senators "duly chosen and sworn") brings debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII.According to the Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Ballin (1892), changes to Senate rules could be achieved by a simple majority; but, under current Senate rules, the rule change itself could be filibustered. In this case votes from two-thirds of the Senators present and voting would be required to break the filibuster.
Yglesias, it would seem, had no problem whatsoever...
...when Democrats created the judicial filibuster, an unconstitutional maneuver designed to prevent President George W. Bush from naming the first Hispanic, Miguel Estrada, to the nation's second-highest court.The modern, radical left Democrat Party, and its sycophants like Yglesias, are cynical, intellectually dishonest and completely, utterly at odds with our founding, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
That Yglesias attempts to cite the founding -- when he and his ilk routinely ignore the Constitution in their illegal attempts to change the relationship between the individual and the state -- is the very definition of chutzpah. It would, in fact, be high comedy were the stakes not so high.
Yglesias Disses the Constitution
Furthermore, Yglesias -- in the very same eruption of verbal excrement -- slams the Constitution itself, stating, "...US officials seem to know better than to indulge in the patriotic myth that our constitution is the greatest system of government ever devised."Really, Ygly? Really? Where is it better? Zimbabwe? Greece? Red China?
We are conservatives, which is to say we believe in the founding principles of the United States of America. That is: limited government, a respect for individual liberty, free enterprise and private property.
You reject America's founding principles: the very tenets that led to the creation of the greatest country the world has ever seen.
In little more than two hundred years, Americans defeated slavery, Nazism, military Shintoism and Communism; refined mass production; invented human flight; created 75% of all medical innovations on the planet; put a man on the moon; invented the telephone, the Internet and the search engine; and advanced humankind in millions of other ways, in every field and endeavor.You oppose our Constitution and our Declaration of Independence.
You refute the notion of God-given rights of man and carefully constructed limits on an all-powerful, centralized, authoritarian government.
You see the world as rigid classes of people that must be manipulated to advance a political agenda; whereas we conservatives revel in the notion that America has no static class structure; that every day the rich become poor and the poor rich.You oppose free markets and the power of the individual -- no matter the race, creed, religion or color -- to achieve greatness through hard work, study, inspiration and innovation.
Now go wait in line at the DMV, you whining twit, so you can experience the kind of service you'll receive when your grand socialized health care plan goes into effect.
Hat tip: Memeorandum. Linked by: InstaPundit, Michelle Malkin, The Other McCain, ShoutFirst and The Astute Bloggers, who provide an excellent history lesson for the "progressives". Thanks!
27 comments:
I absolutely thought the filibuster was bad even when Democrats were in the minority. Please don't accuse me of hypocrisy without looking up the details.
ouch. next we learn Matthew thought Conjunction Junction was a popular stop on AmTrak....
THE FOUNDING FATHERS INTENDED THE SENATE HAVE A COMPLETELY UNLIMITED DEBATE.
CLOTURE WAS DESIGNED/PASSED BY THE OBAMALIKE POTUS WILSON TO END DEBATE.
1917. IT WAS SET AT 2/3'S OF THE SENATE TO END DEBATE AND FORCE A VOTE.
IT WAS REDUCED IN THE 1970'S TO 60.
REDUCING EVEN FURTHER THE THRESHOLD FOR INVOKING CLOTURE WOULD TAKES US EVEN FURTHER FROM THE FOUNDING FATHER'S INTENT - NOT CLOSER TO IT.
Matthew is a fascist and basically admits it.
I guess Yglesias has never read Article I, Section 5, paragraph 2.
"Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..."
Mr. Yglesia, it ain't hypocrisy you're accused of. It's idiocy...
"Now go wait in line at the DMV, you whining twit..."
From now on, I will close every argument with an American-hating, constitution-shredding, race-baiting liberal with the above phrase.
At 1:39 PM , Matthew Yglesias said...
I absolutely thought the filibuster was bad even when Democrats were in the minority. Please don't accuse me of hypocrisy without looking up the details.
Being "bad" does not equate to "unconstitutional", nor out of step with the Founders.
Is this the same 'Think Progress' that has the Pentagon shooter as a right-winger? Right-Winger - Not much reason to believe a word they say with that level of accuracy.
The linked 'The American Prospect' article has some fairly blase left-wing tripe: "In the short term, this would produce bad results: confirmation for some bad judges." - like Sotomayor? She is not Estrada's equal; let alone his superior. He wasn't nominated to the Supreme Court - she's on it. Roberts? Obama voted against him - Sotomayor isn't qualified to clean Roberts' toe-jam.
Well, it's in the constitution. However, Yglesias correctly links to his article showing he is not hypocritical. At least give him credit for that.
"(Today's Dems)...are cynical, intellectually dishonest and completely, utterly at odds with our founding, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence."
I want to bear your children.
"Now go wait in line at the DMV, you whining twit, so you can experience the kind of service you'll receive when your grand socialized health care plan goes into effect."
To quote George Costanza, "I think it moved!"
Oh, DAMN, that was good!
So "Matthew Yglesias" makes the first comment. And once again a patrolling lib rushes to make the first comment about a post at a conservative blog. It's like clockwork - see how often it happens not only here but web-wide.
Anyway, "M.Y." here claims that "I (sic) absolutely thought the filibuster was bad even when Democrats were in the minority. Please don't accuse me of hypocrisy without looking up the details."
Oh, really? Well, maybe in Bizarro World someone might think that, in the American Prospect article M.Y. links to, Yglesias was really saying the filibuster was "bad even when the Democrats were in the majority."
This is what the real Matthew Yglesias had to say in that post about whether Dems should avail themselves of the filibuster to stop a Republican-majority Senate:
"Senate Democrats, naturally enough, are plotting a second strike: Through various manipulations of the Senate rules, they will bring the entire legislative process to a grinding halt. AND RIGHTLY SO. THERE'S NO PARTICULAR REASON WHY FILIBUSTERS SHOULD BE BANNED (emp. added) just for nomination votes, and there's certainly no justification for doing so in a way that violates the Senate's rules. "
The real M.Y. goes on to say that although the filibuster has worked in the past, and will work very well at the time to block certain "terrible" Bush judicial appointees, a GOP majority was an anomaly, and the Dems would surely regain their "natural majority" soon enough. M.Y. said that when the Dems are the majority, filibuster rules would work against them, so he urged the Dems to take the long view so that they could reap greater political power later. the political advantage might go to the Dems.
It's painfully obvious Yglesias was speaking purely about the end-result in iron-fist politics. His comment was about tactics which would gain and hold for Dems the upper hand; and had absolutely nothing to do with what was good for the country.
So "Matthew Yglesias" accuses Doug Ross of hypocrisy? The utter cynicism of that statement is astounding. It's a wonder his keyboard didn't burst into flames.
I loved it when Mickey Kaus called him a "Authoritative Juiceboxer"
At 3:55 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...
I loved it when Mickey Kaus called him a "Authoritative Juiceboxer"
Hehe. "Juicebox Mafia."
Matthew Yglesias, like his little fawning poodle, Ezra Klein, is a know nothing, never had any honest job, two bit bloviating punk with no idea how the real world works. But Soros's bucks gives him the idea that he is a big-time Thinking Man, and his Juicebox Jerkoff future is assured to be crowded with unicorns and multi-colored Skittles.
Hey, Matty? I just laid off my last remaining employee. Your Messiah is driving my business into a Chapter Eleven situation. And reading impertinent gits like you make me happy I'm still allowed--at least for now--to bear arms.
When your doctor is paid by the state instead of by you (or your contractual agent, an insurer), whose interests do you think he or she will serve?
At 1:39 PM , Anonymous Matthew Yglesias said...
Maybe not hypocritical, you said that during R majorities. However, your title says it all: "The filibuster helps conservatives more than liberals. It's time to get rid of it." You certainly are consistent. It is the exact same argument you make now. Hardly a sackcloth and ashes argument about "majoritarian rule", but a hard-nosed us-vs-them "we need to take away any power they have" argument. Basically, you want to rewrite the rules to benefit you and marginalize your opposition instead of debate on the merits. Shame on you.
"I absolutely thought the filibuster was bad even when Democrats were in the minority. Please don't accuse me of hypocrisy without looking up the details."
That's right, Yglesias is perfectly consistent in his derision for and ignorance of the US Constitution, and don't you forget it.
For Yglesias and the rest of Jim Henson's Pundit Babies, the rules only count when you don't need to break them to get what you want.
"Americans defeated Nazism"
We did have a bit of help. You should know that, I would think.
I had a similar take and linked you in an update.
"Thin" progress?
From Matt in 2005: "The filibuster helps conservatives more than liberals." The theme is: the filibuster is bad even though it sometimes helps liberals, because overall it prevents liberals from getting their way more than it does conservatives -- oh, but if we have them, yes we should have them for judicial appointments too.
They say hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue, but there's no virtue here and hence no hypocrisy. The only "principle" in evidence is ideological advantage.
...so this is sort of like the preacher who gets caught cheating on his wife, and defends himself with "I'm no hypocrite! I told everyone to cheat on their wives!"
Well, Mathew..what you "think" about the Constitution or Senate rules doesn't really matter. Both the Constitution and Senate rules can be changed using the Amendment Process and Rules Change process.
I suggest you BEGIN to study our Founding Documents and for good measure perhaps pick up a copy of the Constitution of the Soviet Union of 1936. The present Marxist ideologue in the White House doesn't seem to care for the American Constitution either.
As an aside, Mathew the left today are NOT "liberals". They are Socialists, Progressives, Communists. These folks have NO use for the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution; it is an impediment to their totalitarian goals of BIG Government controlling Americans at all levels. Damn them all and ignorant sycophants like you.
There is nothing wrong with the filibuster for legislative purposes. It has been part of the Senate rules since the inception and serves a useful purpose, i.e., to provide a simmering pot into which legislation can be dropped.
It is important not to confuse the use of the filibuster for legislative purposes, which was clearly contemplated by the first Senate, with the use of the filibuster in presidential appointments which require advice and consent of the senate. There is little historical support for the proposition that the advice and consent clause as originally drafted requires an affirmative vote of approval in the senate. Washington sought senate approval once, then concluded it was a waste of time.
If Yglesias does not know this history then he is indeed a moron.
Post a Comment