After the Unites States Senate decided to go the route of Filibuster Reform because of Republicans in the Senate abusing the power, conservatives who were in support of reform when Bush was president are now treating it like a tragedy. Out of those conservatives, the rhetoric of one seems to stand out. That conservative is Rush Limbaugh, who compare it to allowing women to be raped.
Let’s say, let’s take 10 people in a room and they’re a group. And the room is made up of six men and four women. OK? The group has a rule that the men cannot rape the women. The group also has a rule that says any rule that will be changed must require six votes, of the 10, to change the rule. Every now and then, some lunatic in the group proposes to change the rule to allow women to be raped. But they never were able to get six votes for it. There were always the four women voting against it and they always found two guys.Well, the guy that kept proposing that women be raped finally got tired of it, and he was in the majority and he was one that [said], ‘You know what? We’re going to change the rule. Now all we need is five.” And well, ‘you can’t do that.’ ‘Yes we are. We’re the majority. We’re changing the rule.’ And then they vote. Can the women be raped? Well, all it would take then is half of the room.
Bad math aside(If six people voted against it, changing the rule to 5 vs. 5 wouldn’t mean a thing), the rape comparison is rather creepy, but we are talking about Limbaugh. How does rape even cross your mind when talking about a senate rule change?
Again, we are talking about Limbaugh.
(Credit to Media Matters)
What’s funny is how he took a complete 180 from his original talking point, where he was completely in support of Filibuster Reform and the people in support of the change in the rules weren’t considered ‘lunatics’ by him, but merely hard-working constitutionalists who just wanted to get things done, since, you know, the Senate was Republican and the president was George W. Bush.
This filibuster, as you know, they’re filibustering these nominations which requires essentially 60 votes for a judge to be confirmed. The Constitution says nothing about this. The Constitution says simple majority, 51 votes. But because they’re invoking the filibuster, which, you know, the Senate can make up its own rules but not when they impose on the Constitution and not when they impose on the legislative branch. Separation of powers here. But if nobody stops them, they’re going to keep getting away with it. It’s up to the Senate Republicans to stop them.
Now, this is Point 2. There’s a so-called “nuclear” option, which I don’t like that term. Call it the Constitutional Option. It would end the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations. The Democrats are warning that if the Republicans change the filibuster rule on them, then all hell will break loose. I can’t think of anything worse than what they’ve done and will continue to do, which is prevent the president from appointing judges in federal court, so let them break out their new version of hell. What more can they do on this? And let them try it. They don’t have the political standing in the country to do this. They don’t have the love and devotion of a majority of the American people, so if they’re going to claim all hell will break loose, let’s see what their hell is. But don’t call this the nuclear option. Call it the constitutional option.
By the way, annual filibuster counts have doubled since Limbaugh said that.