Pelosi Locks Minority Out of the Process

She’s getting ready to push through some steaming piles of garbage. 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi plans to re-write House rules today to ensure that the Republican minority is unable to have any influence on legislation. Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian, and will so polarize the Capitol, that any thought President-elect Obama has of bipartisan cooperation will be rendered impossible before he even takes office.

Pelosi’s rule changes—which may be voted on today—will reverse the fairness rules that were written around Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America.”

In reaction, the House Republican leadership is sending a letter today to Pelosi to object to changes to House Rules this week that would bar Republicans from offering alternative bills, amendments to Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. These procedural abuses, as outlined in the below letter obtained by HUMAN EVENTS, would also include the repeal of six-year limit for committee chairmen and other House Rules reform measures enacted in 1995 as part of the Contract with America.

So, you Democrats out there… any reaction?  Before you answer that, just imagine it is 2005 and Hastert was doing this. 

1. Perhaps your readers would be interested in a more detailed and fact-based account of what Pelosi is proposing from CQ Politics, as opposed to Human Events and its own usual “steaming piles of garbage.”

   People make what they will of term limits.  And it would appear that Pelosi is attempting to prevent just one type of recommit motion that some would argue Republicans have used while in the minority to railroad popular legislation with unrelated fodder from their own agenda.  There are still plenty of nearly-identical ways for Republicans to advance and promote their own ideas, either in committee or on the floor.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 05, 2009 at 1548 hrs




2. ooooh

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1634 hrs




3. I was in DC in ‘05 when Hastert was doing it and I sure didn’t hear anyone like you complaining about it. It’s as wrong now as it was then to limit minority participation, regardless of the letter after the name.

   I’d like to take you back to 2005 as well Owen. I seem to remember people like you had a word for a minority party that wouldn’t let the majority do everything it wanted. Obstr…something-ists I believe was the term.

   Tell me, 4 years later, are you going to use the same term for a pain in the ass minority or has something changed?

   Dare you to actually answer.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1645 hrs




4. Something has changed, ATV.

   The inmates are now running the asylum. Obstructionism of the Democratic agenda is patriotism.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1717 hrs




5. She must have gotten some ideas from the NC State Legislature.  The D’s there won’t even let the minority members speak.  Bills have zero debate.

   Regardless of the party affiliation of the majority its wrong.  As those on the left-o-sphere are always so keen to remind us that we shouldn’t allow tyranny of the majority.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1802 hrs




6. Nobody is trying to keep anyone from speaking.  This change is hardly draconian, if you understand what she’s trying to change.

   The distinction is between allowing members to make a motion to recommit promptly versus a motion to recommit forthwith.  Matters that are handled forthwith are dispensed of in a few minutes on the floor, and it’s worth noting that Democrats have often been more than willing to go along with some of these changes.  In fact, they often ask for unanimous consent to change “promptly” to “forthwith” in order to expedite proceedings and are turned down by those offering the motion.  In those instances, the only interest held by the author is to delay action.

   Here’s the relevant House rule, from Section 1002(b) of the House Manual:

   “Unlike the case of the motion to recommit with instructions to report back forthwith, the adoption of which occasions an immediate report to the floor, the adoption to a motion to recommit with instructions to report back other than forthwith sends the bill to committee whose eventual report, if any, would not be immediately before the House.’’

   Republicans would still be able to recommit without instructions (which sends the bill back to committee for policy changes) or with instructions to makes changes forthwith, which means the matter is dealt with on the floor and the bill, amended or otherwise, moves on to passage.

   Hardly a big deal - just an attempt to prevent parliamentary obstructionism.  It doesn’t restrict debate, it isn’t an attempt to shut the minority down.  It’s an attempt to get Congress to stop wasting time.  The minority is still afforded plenty of ways and plenty of opportunities to make changes to legislation.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on January 05, 2009 at 1927 hrs




7. So, its patriotism when Republicans do it, but obstruction when Democrats do it?  Typical conservative hypocrisy.  Not surprising at all. 

   I also think its funny that your definition of patriotism is blocking an agenda supported by a clear majority of the country.  Elections have consequences.  Sorry, you lost.  I think its about time that every oppressive procedural maneuver perfected by the Republican congress over the last decade is turned against them.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 1933 hrs




8. The Republicans set a record for using this obstructionist tool in the last session.  (The Republican Senators also shattered the record on filibusters.)  I thought the proprietors of this website opposed using procedural methods to hold up the business of the Congress.  At least that’s what you both said when the Republicans were in charge.

   Posted by folkbum on January 05, 2009 at 2020 hrs




9. I have no problem with the changes she proposes.  Elections have consequences and not having a say in legislation is one of them.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 2041 hrs




10. John said,

    So, its patriotism when Republicans do it, but obstruction when Democrats do it?  Typical conservative hypocrisy.

    Um no. It’s typical partisan hypocrisy. Hacks of all stripes love the filibuster and other such tactics when they’re caught in the minority, while they think the “will of the people” is being thwarted when they’re in the minority.

    This argument is indicative of the hypocrisy that is found in the DNA of people who orally service the political parties.

    Hack: “Hmmm, what can I say to make my side look good and the other bad? Oh yeah, here goes…”

    Me: “Um, isn’t that the opposite of what you said a few years ago?”

    Hack: “Yeah but the other side isn’t any better”.

    Me: “So the other side’s hypocrisy gives you license to do the same?”

    Hack: Um, bye now.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 2055 hrs




11. Dammit. Should be, ““will of the people” is being thwarted when they’re in the majority”.

    Got caught watching football while typing.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2009 at 2057 hrs




12. I would say it’s the will of the people if they actually campaigned on the crazy liberal policies they are going to push.  But Dems campaign as moderates back home and then head to Washington and turn into hyper-lefties.  There is no mandate for hyper-leftists…there’s a mandate for moderates.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 0804 hrs




13. I said,

    Hack: Um, bye now.

    Can I call it or what?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2009 at 2137 hrs




14. I saw a bumper sticker that showed up in the last year of GW’s term that said, “Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism”. Now, with Skeletor Pelosi changing the rules, and with the Democrats in power, It’s likely that dissent will be considered treason.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2009 at 1126 hrs