« "My colon is not my friend" | Main | Will Democrats Fall On Their Swords For ObamaCare? »

Get Ready. The Democrats are Going to Slaughter Democracy Next Week

Ace of Spades posted some alarming news. Nancy Pelosi says that the Democrats are going to use the Slaughter Rule to pass the Senate ObamaCare bill and the vote is set for next week.

In case you're unfamiliar, the Slaughter Rule is named after Louise "she wore her dead sister's dentures" Slaughter and it works like this: The speaker brings a bill containing a list of changes that the House wants to make to the Senate bill to the floor for a vote. When the House members vote for and pass this list of changes to the Senate bill, the House will deem the Senate bill as passed as well, even though the Senate bill itself was never voted on to begin with.

Apparently Pelosi feels comfortable enough calling for the vote next week because she's been pretty successful peeling away enough of Stupak's bloc.

Nice, huh? The American people hate this bill so much that this is the only way Nancy Pelosi can get the bill out of the House and onto the president's desk. And if the House can get the wildly unpopular ObamaCare passed in this way, what's to stop them from doing this with every other bill that is unpopular with the American people?

I guess there are a lot of Democratic members of the House up for reelection in November who feel ready to retire.

Update: Robert Costa at The Corner has a long post about Bart Stupak and how his pro-life bloc of Democrats are going wobbly on the issue of life. It's a compelling view of the cynicism and nastiness of Washington, particularly from the Democrats who Stupak says want to fund abortions so they can better control and reduce the number of people who will need government funded health care. (Those who are inclined to get their panties in a bunch need to know this: there is a history of using abortion for controlling populations. Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger for the express purpose of limiting certain groups of people that she felt were a drain on society and, therefore, unworthy of life.) Here's a portion of Costa's post:

Stupak notes that his negotiations with House Democratic leaders in recent days have been revealing. "I really believe that the Democratic leadership is simply unwilling to change its stance," he says. "Their position says that women, especially those without means available, should have their abortions covered." The arguments they have made to him in recent deliberations, he adds, "are a pretty sad commentary on the state of the Democratic party."

What are Democratic leaders saying? "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing," Stupak says. "Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue -- come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we're talking about."

"Throughout this debate, even when the House leaders have acknowledged us, it's always been in a backhanded way," he laments. "I'm telling the others to hold firm, and we'll meet next week, but I'm disappointed in my colleagues who said they'd be with us and now they're not. It's almost like some right-to-life members don't want to be bothered. They just want this over."

And the politics of the issue are pretty rough. "This has really reached an unhealthy stage," Stupak says. "People are threatening ethics complaints on me. On the left, they're really stepping it up. Every day, from Rachel Maddow to the Daily Kos, it keeps coming. Does it bother me? Sure. Does it change my position? No."

So, this is what the Democratic party has been reduced to: threatening to file ethics complaints against a member in order to force him to vote in a way that violates his conscience and his constituents' wishes. This is your party leadership at work, Democrats. Proud?

When I read that Stupak said the pro-lifers in his bloc "just want this over," it triggered in my mind the image of a person so ravaged and worn down by disease that he can't go on even another day. The disease has overtaken his body to the point that he knows it has beaten him and death is imminent. Now he just wants it over.

It seems the leftists in the House have worn down the weaker members of Stupak's bloc in much the same way. For many of these Democrats, their political lives are on the line because they come from more conservative districts. The pressure that Pelosi and the other House Dems have placed on them caused them to fold and now they are succumbing to what will probably result in their political deaths.

Update II: Mark Levin calls for Louise Slaughter's expulsion from the US House of Representatives.

Hat tip: Hot Air

Update III: Allahpundit is having a hard time believing that Democrats have been telling Stupak that they want publicly funded abortions because more babies means the government has to spend more money. If you refuse to believe that Democrats told Stupak this, check out Sister Toldjah's post here. She provides example after example of liberals who have used cost savings for society and government as a reason why abortion is important.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38477.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Get Ready. The Democrats are Going to Slaughter Democracy Next Week:

» Washington Rebel linked with Obama Akbar!

Comments (38)

Staggering!!are th... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Staggering!!

are the Dems TRYING split this country up?

apparently so

why does a majority vote re... (Below threshold)
nyp:

why does a majority vote represent a "slaughter of democracy"?

Nope because the next HUGE ... (Below threshold)

Nope because the next HUGE push will be immigration reform so they can load the voting pools with grateful former illegals.

Our representatives are about to screw us and if they do we need to take our country back.

nyp,Read the artic... (Below threshold)

nyp,

Read the article. The point is the HOUSE WON'T VOTE ON THE BILL. Just amendments to it.

NOT A MAJORITY VOTE!

nyp, it's about the "If we ... (Below threshold)
Burton Choinski:

nyp, it's about the "If we can't do by the rules, throw the rules out." The left would be spitting blood if Bush and the republicans did less than this, but it's fine with the fascist far left when it's them in charge.

I know the dems will do any... (Below threshold)

I know the dems will do anything to 'pass' this, but I find this even a bit beyond them...most of it doesn't kick in for years (except the tax hikes and medicare cuts, of course), the GOP will run this year and in 2012 on repealing it with actual reform, they'll landslide because no one will have seen benefits yet, and the Dems will be set back even further than they will be without passing this. it's gotten to the point where I'm not seeing the benefit they hope to get anymore, it will be such a bastardized and probably unconstitutional thing - must less defensible than actually passing something horrible. I'm beginning to suspect mental instability if they think this will work.

THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! ... (Below threshold)
Dan:

THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! APPALLING!! AMERICA CAN NOT TOLERATE THIS!

This bill's next stop is go... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

This bill's next stop is going to be the Supreme Court.

nyp, Did you read ... (Below threshold)

nyp,

Did you read the post? Pelosi can't get a majority vote on the Senate bill, so they are voting on the changes to it. If that passes, they will consider the Senate bill passed as well, even though it was never voted on.

"why does a majority vote r... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"why does a majority vote represent a "slaughter of democracy"?"

There won't be a vote. That is the whole point. If there was going to be a vote there wouldn't be such an uproar.

I skimmed this piece by Co... (Below threshold)
rory:

I skimmed this piece by Costa but I did not notice this section until I followed Kim's link over to Ace of Spades where they have this section of the interview with Stupak in bold:

"If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing," Stupak says. "Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue -- come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we're talking about."

(the low contrast for block quotes and comments really is hard to read for me.)

Drudge is linking to it first item on his page but without highlighting that particular section.

It has become obvious this ... (Below threshold)
Deke:

It has become obvious this is not about Healthcare at all, it's all about power. The control of healtcare has been the goal of the Socialis/Facist movement in America for the last 40 years. They truly felt that this was the year that the people were ready to ascend into the Nirvana of Europen style Social Democracy.

They have been more than a bit shocked at the reaction and with their ultimate goal of total government control from cradle to grave in sight they are in the "man the torpedoes, full steam ahead" mode, consequences be damned!

Other than Jacksons complete disregard for the SCOTUS finding of the Unconstitutionality of the Indian Removal Act, he basically said, "If the SCOTUS has an army then they can stop me" I can't find anywhere in our history where there has been such a blatant disregard for the represenative Republican process as this.

They honestly want to pass a bill without voting on it, just a set of amendments they "hope" the senate will pass "after" it becomes law and say that is good enough? If they do this and show such disregard for the process and the people, it's not enough to make them pay in November, you'll nvr get enough to over-ride a veto, no my friends at the minimum it's time to put pressure on our legislatures at home to call for an Article V convention and that pressure must continue with states REFUSING to participate based on Article X provisions.

I don't know if America has gone to far down the road to complacency and the value of our LCD t.v.'s is more important than the legacy that we are leaving our children, I for one hope not.

Why do fascists like Nancy... (Below threshold)
rory:

Why do fascists like Nancy always have to get ugly and flirt with eugenics?

If Nancy can "deem" the law... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

If Nancy can "deem" the law passed, can I "deem" my federal income taxes paid?

Garandfan,<blockquot... (Below threshold)
Kenny:

Garandfan,

If Nancy can "deem" the law passed, can I "deem" my federal income taxes paid?
Only if you're a registered democrat either working for the federal government or seeking a politial appointment!

No, but if the article on D... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

No, but if the article on Drudge is true, they are also "Deeming" that they now have the power to nationalize the student loan program as well. Incredibly, it has been shoehorned into the healthcare bill and it will become law without a Senate vote at all.

According to the AP Friday afternoon surprise news story, "The measure would require the government to originate student loans, closing out a role for banks and other private lenders who charge a fee. Obama proposed taking the savings and plowing it into higher Pell Grants that go to needy college students."

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100312/D9EDAV381.html

Hell, why don't they toss in Cap and Trade, automatic citizenship for illegal aliens, another Stimulus Bill, a federal takeover of the education system and deem Obama President For Life while they're at it?

Jeezus. This is getting crazy.

You do realize that this is... (Below threshold)
David Marcoc:

You do realize that this is like trying to hold up a boulder with matchsticks and bound to fall on them? Not only would the legal contestation be immediate, but the Supreme Court would throw it out so fast you would need a radar gun to measure the speed. It wouldn't be law. That's the simple fact.

"but the Supreme Court woul... (Below threshold)
retired military:

"but the Supreme Court would throw it out so fast you would need a radar gun to measure the speed. It wouldn't be law. That's the simple fact.
"

Not if the dems pack the courts. After all congress sets the size of the supreme court.

If you dont think they will go that far then reread the article above.

Thank you Kim!Or t... (Below threshold)
rory:

Thank you Kim!

Or to whomever of the Wizbang crew went with the bold.

That was me, Rory. Not a pr... (Below threshold)

That was me, Rory. Not a problem.

Thanks, Kim.This n... (Below threshold)
rory:

Thanks, Kim.

This news from Stupak is horrifying.

I can see it now. We will ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I can see it now. We will soon hear how it is too expensive for the government to pay for your birth, but it will gladly pay for the abortion.

We will go from back alley abortions to back alley births in 40 years.

Heck, in Illinois Obama was a proponent of infanticide. Anyone want to lay odds on whether the federal government gets the power to take your newborn from you and kill it?

Slaughter is the representa... (Below threshold)
JJ:

Slaughter is the representative from the 28th district in NY...MY district...Massa was the rep for the 29th. We're surrounded by corrupt democrats up here and the machine just keeps keepin' on.

Last summer when the town halls were going on, I called her office many, many times trying to pin them down on the date(s) for hers. At first they assured me she'd be holding at least one (for a district that covers 4 large counties and most of Rochester and Buffalo..the most populous cities in the state outside of NYC). As the days went by the staffers became more and more vague about it. Finally she uttered those famous words "THOSE PEOPLE" referring to her constituents who disagreed with her and declared she wouldn't have a face-to-face town hall. She did a telephone version. What a joke that was. (Saw her at Wegman's just before the holidays. It was all I could do to keep from bashing my cart into her rear end while waiting in the checkout line.)

The denture story? Shouldn't someone on her staff have told her that Obamacare won't pay for dentures?

I'm rambling, sorry..just so angry with the old hag I could scream.

Shoot them dead My Lord, ki... (Below threshold)
914:

Shoot them dead My Lord, kill them all...


Drop the daiseycutters My Lord.... 59 trillions tons or more.

Kill them all My Lord.. Kill them all.. Ohh.. Lord kill them all...

I am truly SHAKING I am so ... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

I am truly SHAKING I am so outraged by this!

The House Dems are going to "DEEM" Legislation as having been passed. DEEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Even tossing these bums out of office in November won't be enough. Dammit folks...maybe this country really DOES need to dissolve! I am ready!

"but the Supreme Court woul... (Below threshold)
jim m:

"but the Supreme Court would throw it out so fast you would need a radar gun to measure the speed. It wouldn't be law. That's the simple fact."

Oh yes. And we all know what a great respecter of the US Supreme Court Obama is.

If the dems are willing to start 'deeming' that legislation has been passed then we no longer live in a democracy and we live in a dictatorship. The rule of law will have ceased to be and there are no more guarantees for any of our rights.

I can see that if there are any problems the Obama administration will 'deem' that they have received the resignations of all the Supreme Court Justices.

If Pelosi thought the bombi... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

If Pelosi thought the bombing of Hiroshima was bad, just wait until November's election cycle. She wanted 'to make history'. She will, but not the way she thinks.

I spent 8 years in the M... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

I spent 8 years in the Marines so this BITCH could just DEEM laws into existence!

Please, those of you on the Left...would this be acceptable if a Republican was "DEEMING" laws into existence???????

At this point what is there... (Below threshold)
jim m:

At this point what is there that makes anyone expect that a single dem will be allowed to be voted out of office in November?

As to the question re: the ... (Below threshold)
jim m:

As to the question re: the Supreme Court... Apparently Slaughter is proposing a rule change that will enable the House to "deem" the bill to have passed. Historically, the Supreme Court has not interfered with how the House conducts its internal business. It is more than likely that the Supreme Court would decline to even hear the case.

the Supreme Cou... (Below threshold)
the Supreme Court would throw it out so fast you would need a radar gun to measure the speed
Isn't that what we thought about McCain-Feingold?
Justrand has a good point.<... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Justrand has a good point.

When the libbies are howling with glee next week, wetting themselves with joy over their Pyrrhic Victory, they might consider what's going to happen the next time they're in a minority. Like next November. Eight months from now.

Be careful what you wish for, children. Payback can be a bitch. I'm not the first person here to use the term, but this is not a Filibuster-Proof Majority. This is a coup d'etat by our own elected officials. The people we elected to represent us.

Given that the operation of... (Below threshold)
brbrbr:

Given that the operation of this rule is public knowledge, then the vote on the amendments WILL BE a vote on the bill, and a vote on the amendments at the same time. So, clearly, if a majority vote for the amendments first, they will do so knowing this means they are voting for the Senate bill. where is the lack of majority vote?

of course, I am arguing logic and ignoring the paranoid mischaracterization to help people forget that political opponents are not enemies. You can claim that your opponents are insane murderers all you want, but that doesn't make it true

The democrats have to have ... (Below threshold)
Anon Y. Mous:

The democrats have to have someone to blame for their failure to get Obamacare enacted. Scott Brown is one person they can point to, but that isn't enough. So, they will do this ridiculous, unconstitutional flim-flam, and then when it gets thrown out by SCOTUS, they will have their backup excuse.

They simply cannot go to the voters and admit that the reason they couldn't get it done was that they couldn't come to an agreement amongst themselves.

Actually Br your quite wron... (Below threshold)
Deke:

Actually Br your quite wrong, they are voting on amendments they "hope" the Senate will attach "after" the bill becomes law, through reconciliation. They are not voting on the Senate bill, which is what the president will sign, they are "deeming" it passed based on their passage of non binding amendments. They are skirting the conference process altogether and thumbing their nose at over 200 years of republican democracy..how you can't be outraged, regardless of party affiliation, is beyond me.

brbrbr wrote:<blockq... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

brbrbr wrote:

Given that the operation of this rule is public knowledge, then the vote on the amendments WILL BE a vote on the bill, and a vote on the amendments at the same time. So, clearly, if a majority vote for the amendments first, they will do so knowing this means they are voting for the Senate bill. where is the lack of majority vote?

The problem with what you call your "logic" is that Pelosi doesn't agree with you. If it really were actually a majority vote, then Nancy and the Dems wouldn't have to "deem" it passed, it would be passed in reality.
But they do, and it's not a majority vote. It's an astounding ruse that undermines the very definition of democracy. I can see you're happy about it; I'm not.

What are Democrati... (Below threshold)
kevino:
What are Democratic leaders saying? "If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That's one of the arguments I've been hearing," Stupak says. "Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue -- come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we're talking about."

How true. In a socialist system, human life is cheap. A doctor who worked under the British National Healthcare System made this comment:

In a private fee-for-service medical system, a dead patient is a revenue loss. In the National Health Service, a dead patient was a cost savings.
brbrbr writes: Gi... (Below threshold)

brbrbr writes:
Given that the operation of this rule is public knowledge, then the vote on the amendments WILL BE a vote on the bill, and a vote on the amendments at the same time. So, clearly, if a majority vote for the amendments first, they will do so knowing this means they are voting for the Senate bill. where is the lack of majority vote?

Our Congress does not vote based upon "public knowledge" and must follow Constitutional and Congressional rules. A majority vote would mean a vote on the Senate Bill which is what the House must pass for Obama to sign it into law.

Since the House can't do that (so far) because of lack of votes, the House is proposing to write another bill with changes they want to the Senate Bill. Then they are changing the rules of the House, the "Slaughter" change, to say that the change bill passage means the Senate Bill passage.

This is against the Constitution and tears apart our rule of law. It is a dangerous precedent.

From the Constitution:
U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively...




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy