A Foolish Consistency on Reconciliation
Given their rhetoric in recent days, many may view the behavior of the current majority as emblematic of the old axiom that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds – or at worst a trifling inconvenience to those attempting to pass a government takeover of health care. This video featuring quotes from leading Democrats in May 2005 – when Republicans attempted to pass judicial nominations using 51 votes, the same majority with which Democrats now want to pass a health care bill under reconciliation – tells the tale:
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): “A change in the Senate rules that really, I think, would change the character of the Senate forever…And what I worry about would be you essentially still have two chambers – the House and the Senate – but you have simply majoritarian, absolute power on either side. And that’s just not what the Founders intended.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated….The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote, you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing, it’s almost a temper tantrum….They want their way every single time, and they will change the rules, break the rules, mis-read the Constitution so that they will get their way.”
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “The right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases a filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.”
Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE): “…Ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab….I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT): “I’ve never passed a single bill worth talking about that didn’t have as a lead co-sponsor a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and a Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that – that’s why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the Framers thinking about?…They understood, Mr. President, that there is a tyranny of the majority.”
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “The Senate becomes ipso facto the House of Representatives, where the majority rules supreme and the party in power can dominate, and control the agenda with absolute power.”
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): “You’ve got majority rule and then you’ve got this Senate over here where people can slow things down, where they can debate, where they have something called the filibuster – you know, it seems like it’s a little less than efficient. Well, that’s right – it is – and deliberately designed to be so….The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent, to ignore the way our system has worked, the delicate balance that we have obtained that has kept this constitutional system going, for immediate gratification of the present President.”
Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT): “This is the way democracy ends: Not with a bomb, but with a gavel.”