Demorats claim Republican Thrashing Constitution

[SB Shock]

A blast from the past when Republican threatened to change the rules in the Senate to not require only simple majorities.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

"I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."

"Arrogant Power Grab against the Founders Intent"

Plenty of other good stuff in the video showing the hypocrisy. I'm the Vice-Dufus will be setting his fellow democrats straight.

[Maggie]

The recent attacks on the filibuster and the public whining about how “government is broken” – really gets on my nerves. And the hypocrisy cuts both ways. Even after more than 20 years of following politics, I continue to be amazed by how short-sighted political people and pundits can be – and also how willfully ignorant they are when it comes to our system of government.

Just a few short years ago, public-spirited U.S. senators (including Republicans) were vilified by the right wing (nonsensically) for standing up to save the filibuster (this time it was attacked by Republicans because the filibuster was being used to block President Bush’s judicial appointments), and thus the Senate’s constitutional role in moderating the passions of the more plebiscitary House of Representatives. It can be argued that the filibuster that they saved is the only thing that prevented Obamacare passing last year.

Don’t these people who now lament the filibusters existence actually try to learn something from history? I saw Rachel Maddow a couple of weeks ago deliver a long and passionate address against the filibuster (I caught only the last five minutes of it). I have a question for those that share her opinion: Three years from now, Palin is president, with J. D. Hayworth as Senate majority leader, and Michele Bachmann as Speaker of the House. (Of course it’s impossible – just like the election of Obama was, and the election of Scott Brown, and . . .) I imagine they, too - Palin, Bachmann, Hayworth, Secretary of Defense Liz Cheney, Secretary of Education Glenn Beck, the whole darn team of uglies - are going to want to pass some legislation. Would 51 Senate votes be okay for that, as far as you're concerned? Or will we agree, then, that major changes in national policy need more deliberation, more of a consensus, and not just the passions of a fleeting democratic moment?