FFRF Wins Suit Over Parsonage Tax Break »« Dean’s Bizarre Views on Government

Rush Limbaugh is Being Raped!

Of all the howls of faux outrage from the right over the Senate Democrats invoking the “nuclear option” to eliminate filibusters for most presidential nominations, Rush Limbaugh’s reaction is the most vile and repulsive. Even for Limbaugh, this is incredibly low:

Let’s forget the Senate for a minute. 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. You can change the rule to say three. You can change the rule to say three people want it, it’s going to happen. There’s no rule. When the majority can change the rules there aren’t any.

Hey, whaddaya say we take a look at what Limbaugh was saying in 2004 when the Republicans wanted to eliminate the filibuster and the Democrats didn’t. He put up an entire page of “bullet points” spelling out the position he held then:

The so-called “nuclear option” — which should be called the Constitutional option — would end the use of the filibuster for judicial nominations. The Democrats are warning that if the Republicans change the filibuster rule, then all hell will break loose. I cannot think of anything worse than what they’ve done, and will continue to do — which is prevent the president from appointing judges to the federal court.

The Senate rules have never been used to block presidential judicial appointments. By threatening to use the filibuster, or actually invoking it, the Senate Democrats are requiring that a super-majority of 60 senators must, in essence, confirm a judge. There are 7 instances in which the Constitution provides for super-majority votes — convictions related to impeachment, adoption of treaties, expelling members, overriding vetoes, amending the Constitution, 14th Amendment, and 25th Amendment.

The Senate has, under the Constitution, an “advice and consent” role. But it cannot use that role to impose a super-majority requirement on the president’s nomination function or on the rest of the Senate. After all, all senators have a right, under the Constitution, to provide their advice and consent, which means the right to a simple majority vote on the Senate floor.

At no time in over 200 years, until the prior Senate, did senators contend that the filibuster could be used against judicial nominees. The point is that is was understood that the Constitution did not grant 41 senators the power to thwart the president’s judicial appointment power. The way we conservatives read the Constitution is to try to determine what the words mean, what the framers intended — we don’t assign broad meanings to words or look for loopholes.

One last point – if the Senate, which has the constitutional right to make its own rules, decides that it wants to require a super-majority vote to pass certain bills, such as tax bills, that’s perfectly fine. Such a rule would NOT infringe on a presidential power. But to do so when it affects a presidential power, such as the appointment of judges, that would be unconstitutional.

When Bush was in office, eliminating the filibuster was necessary to preserve the constitution. When Obama is in office, it’s rape. To be fair, though, Bush was white. Don’t worry, Rush; if it’s a legitimate rape, the body politic has the ability to shut down.

Comments

  1. trucreep says

    There is always, aaaaaaaaalways hypocrisy between these two stupid parties. But I have to admit, this whole “nuclear option” one is pretty outrageous in how ridiculous the hypocrisy has been.

  2. Trebuchet says

    @Modus: Or if Obama had been decent enough to allow himself to be frogmarched out of the White House by Klayman’s millions the other day.

  3. Chiroptera says

    Yes, not only do conservatives not know what words mean, they also don’t understand how analogies work.

  4. alanb says

    Rush is projecting again. Watching all that Sandra Fluke fantasy porn must be causing him to lose impulse control.

  5. marcus says

    @ 2 & 3 When will Obama finally accede to the will of the millions of several people who protested his dictatorship at the White House last week? Why must he persist in this illegal “presidency”?

  6. Reginald Selkirk says

    I cannot think of anything worse than what they’ve done, and will continue to do — which is prevent the president from appointing judges to the federal court.

    What a limited imagination. Just off the top of my head, here’s a few things that I think would be worse than preventing the appointment of judges to the federal court:
    1) Asteroid impact wipes out all life on Earth.
    2) The slaughter of millions of people because of religiously-fueled bigotry.
    3) Being trapped in a room with Rush Limbaugh.

  7. Loqi says

    When the majority can change the rules there aren’t any.

    I don’t even understand the argument being made here. There’s always a threshold at which rules can be made or changed. That’s how, for example, the Constitution works. Is he saying that because a 2/3 majority can amend the Constitution we don’t have to abide by it?

  8. says

    In 2004, the Democrats were screeching bloody murder when the Republicans were pushing to limit the filibuster, and I recall plenty of liberal pundits accusing conservatives of sedition and violating their oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

    The whole argument, on both sides, is nothing more than gross hypocrisy. Only this time, for a wonder, it was the Democrats who stood up and showed some backbone, sacrificing some of their own future power for the good of the country.

  9. Alverant says

    #10
    The flaw in your argument is one of magnitude. “Both sides do it” implies “both sides do it equally” and that’s not the case here. The filibuster has been used more against President Obama than any other president in history and it is being used purely out of spite. Now perhaps some Democrats did you the filibuster against W for bad reasons, but there were legitimate reasons too and I’m willing to bet those are in the majority. I would say that the chances are the “liberal pundits accusing conservatives of sedition and violating their oath to protect and defend the Constitution” had some legitimate grounds for that claim unlike the conservatives of today who are calling treason the same thing they supported when it was in their favor.

  10. says

    @Alverant #10 – The “both sides do it” is used as a justification, along the lines of “Sure, I kick puppies, but my opponent does too!” That is not the point I was making. Nor did I say that the Democrats were wrong in this. I was only pointing out that as incensed as the Republicans are, the Democrats were nine years ago when the situation was reversed.

  11. freehand says

    Is Rush saying that if 2/3 of the men agree that the women should be raped, it would be OK? He seems to be OK with it, but only if a sufficiently large crowd supports it.

    I am at a loss for words.

  12. Jordan Genso says

    @12 Gregory in Seattle

    But the situation wasn’t reversed nine years ago, if you accurately describe what the situation is today. Today, the situation is one where the Republicans are abusing the filibuster to an unprecedented level, and so the Democrats have little choice but to take that option away. In 2005, the Democrats were not abusing the filibuster, and so when the Republicans were threatening to take the option away, the Democrats were appropriately arguing against it. (even if you were in favor of the nuclear option back then and you think they were wrong on the issue, their position was at least legitimate)

    If you felt that the filibuster should’ve been undone in 2005, then you have to be in favor of it being undone now, unless you are a hypocrite.

    You could’ve been opposed to getting rid of the filibuster in 2005, yet in favor of it now, without being a hypocrite.

    That is why the false equivalency is in fact false. The Democrats are not claiming that they are kicking puppies, they are saying that they had no choice but to kick the rabid dog that was attacking the child next door. And the Republicans are saying “sure, we kick puppies, but they kick rabid dogs”, as if that was justification.

  13. coragyps says

    Limbaugh is being raped?
    One could hope that Pat Robertson is doing the honors.

    I’ll go bleach my brain now……..

  14. Nihilismus says

    ” . . . 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. . . .’ . . . Well, all it would take then is half of the room. You can change the rule to say three. You can change the rule to say three people want it, it’s going to happen.

    Rush apparently doesn’t realize that “half” (in this case 5 out of 10) is not a “majority”.

    He also doesn’t realize that if you don’t decide things by majority, than there already is a smaller group (like his example of 3 people) that have power. So, for example, while the filibuster might not give 3 people the power to say what’s “going to happen”, it gives 3 people the power to say what’s not going to happen, despite 7 people wanting something to happen.

    His rape example wouldn’t pass constitutional muster regardless of how many legislators voted for it, so we can ignore that reason for keeping the filibuster. Making legislation harder to pass by requiring supermajorities is not guaranteed to lead to better laws — it could make it harder to replace existing bad laws with better laws. It feeds into the whole Republican idea that the federal government is better off not doing anything. It ignores the fact that the government can do a great deal of good, even for deserving minorities, and it shouldn’t be hampered from passing legislation for the benefit of all just because privileged minorities what to protect their privileges.

  15. zubenelakarab says

    Well that was a misleading headline.

    Rush Limbaugh wasn’t being raped just making disgusting and flawed false analogies that reveal hsi total lack of understadningand empathy.

    Hmm .. that’s hardly news is it? Still awful and worth bringing to our notice I guess.

  16. JasonTD says

    With several posts in the last few days showing Republican and/or Republican mouthpiece hypocrisy, I think we get the point. It’s also easy enough to find video and quotes from Biden, Obama, and other Democrats decrying the nuclear option back in 2005 or earlier as well, of course.

    But it seems that the partisans aren’t just about pointing out hypocrisy. You see, when the Democrats did it, it was different . . .

    Jordan Genso @14

    In 2005, the Democrats were not abusing the filibuster, and so when the Republicans were threatening to take the option away, the Democrats were appropriately arguing against it.

    Ed, from a post a couple days ago,

    it [Democrats’ justification for filibustering nominees] was about Rogers Brown and Estrada being really, really extreme nominees (especially Rogers Brown).

    So, according to whom were those nominees “really, really extreme” and thus filibustering them didn’t mean that Democrats were “abusing the filibuster?” The whole point of Advise and Consent is for elected representatives in the Senate to act as a check against the elected President appointing judges to the federal bench for a lifetime. That means that who’s extreme and who isn’t is going to be a matter of opinion for those elected representatives. If you feel that Democrats were justified in filibustering Estrada and Brown, then arguing that a bare majority is good enough now, then that is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

  17. dingojack says

    Jason – here’s a fun little game or ya. Answer the following questions:
    a) How many times have filibusters occurred in the last 50 years?
    b) Since 1963 how often did the Democrats filibuster, how often did the Republicans filibuster?
    c) How many times has filibusters occurred since 20 Jan 2009?
    d) Since President Obama’s first term how often did the Democrats filibuster, how often did the Republicans filibuster?

    Go and find out and report your amazing findings to the rest of us.

    @@
    Dingo

  18. Jordan Genso says

    @18 JasonTD

    Of course, a reasonable person can disagree with what I wrote, if they define “abuse” in a way that includes what the Democrats were doing in 2005. But an objective analysis would have to acknowledge the difference between how the Democrats have used the filibuster, and how the Republicans have these past few years. And it is that undeniable difference that provides Democrats with a legitimate, non-hypocritical reason to change their position on the “nuclear option”.

    If you recognize the difference in how it has been used, then you have to recognize it is possible for someone that has changed their position to not be a hypocrite.

  19. dogmeat says

    If you feel that Democrats were justified in filibustering Estrada and Brown, then arguing that a bare majority is good enough now, then that is hypocrisy, plain and simple.

    In order to obtain your “hypocrisy” you’re ignoring some rather important details of the cases in point. First, the Democrats filibustered two appointments in three years. What brought this to a head was the Republicans filibustering three appointments in two weeks. Add to this the gross abuse of the filibuster by the Republicans over the last five years and the circumstances change dramatically. Roughly akin to someone having a glass of wine with dinner once or twice a week and someone having a liter of vodka with breakfast daily both being “equally” an alcoholic. You can disagree with their reasoning for their filibuster of the two candidates in question, but you can’t really disagree with the difference between a handful of filibusters over the span of multiple years and dozens of filibusters over the span of a few months. Conditions change; in this case drastically so.

  20. tsig says

    ” Trebuchet

    November 25, 2013 at 1:26 pm (UTC -5)

    @Modus: Or if Obama had been decent enough to allow himself to be frogmarched out of the White House by Klayman’s millions the other day.”

    He could have frogmarched himself out of the White House a la Blazing Saddles.

  21. freehand says

    JasonTD, according to the Congressional Research Service, there have been 168 filibuster blocks against presidential judicial nominees since the beginning of our country.
    Recent filibuster judicial nominee blocks:
    Eisenhower:0
    Kennedy: 0
    Johnson: 0
    Nixon: 0
    Carter: 2
    Reagan: 2
    Bush I: 0
    Clinton: 9
    Bush II: 7
    Obama: 82
    …so far.

    Tell us again how they’re pretty much the same.

  22. JasonTD says

    I apologize if I don’t respond to everyone with researched facts. I’m in recovery after a minor surgery and am responding on my phone. Of course I recognize that the Republicans are using the filibuster much more than the Democrats did. Don’t forget though, that the Gang of 14 had something to do with that.

    My argument doesn’t depend on frequency. I am saying that if you accept that it’s acceptable to use the filibuster to block judicial nominees for ideological/partisan reasons, as was the case for the Bush nominees, thdn the Republicans should also be able to do so now. If frequency does matter, then how many nominees do the Republicans get to block before they reach their limit?

    By going ‘nuclear’, the filibuster is now effectively dead. They might say that it is limited to certain nominations, but that is unlikely to survive the next time a Senate majority wants to pass something them minority wants to block. A senate tradition that survived them civil rights battles is effectively gone in order to confirm three judges to them DC circuit.

  23. says

    JasonTD “A senate tradition that survived them civil rights battles is effectively gone in order to confirm three judges to them DC circuit.”
    No. They aren’t against Obama’s nominations: they’re against Obama nominating.

  24. Nemo says

    He can’t even count. He said “they always found two guys” — which means the proposal still fails, with six votes against, under simple majority rule.

Leave a Reply