The 19th-Century "Nuclear Option"
If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist needs a template to follow for the looming showdown with Democrat insurgents over their unconstitutional attempt to defend their hijacking of the Judicial Branch by trying to effectively overturn the results of the past two presidential elections, he need look no further than his 1889 House counterpart, Speaker Thomas Bracket Reed.
Please read the whole linked article. Then go back and read this portion, and picture Frist and the boys employing it in the here & now:
The new speaker's chance came on January 29, 1889, on a motion over a disputed election. Only 163 members affirmatively answered the quorum call, two short of the necessary 165. Instead of simply leaving it at that, however, Reed turned to the clerk of the House and directed him to "record the names of the following members present and refusing to vote." Reed then began reeling off the list of names of Democrats present in the chamber who had refused to answer when their names were called.
As Tuchman records the scene, "pandemonium broke loose" in the House chamber. It was the beginning of five days of parliamentary tumult. A few Democrats attempted to maintain decorum, demanding formally, "I appeal the decision of the Chair!" Most others, however, were less gracious. They shouted, swore, threatened, and pounded their fists on tables and desks. Nevertheless, Reed went on reading the list of names in a calm, assured voice. When he reached the name of Representative James McCreary of Kentucky, the latter exclaimed "I deny your right, Mr. Speaker, to count me as present!"
Reed abruptly ceased reading and, for a moment, a hush fell on the raucous chamber. In a measured voice, Reed calmly observed, "The Chair is making a statement of fact that the gentleman is present. Does he deny it?" Reed then resumed reading his list of names.
Upon reaching the end, Reed declared that a quorum was present in the chamber. When a Democratic member appealed the ruling, Reed firmly denied the appeal. Every Democrat was on his feet yelling, except for a Texas representative, who was conspicuously sharpening a Bowie knife against the sole of his boot while sitting quietly in his seat.
A Republican member — probably one of those 19th-century RINOs — then moved for a debate on the rule change. Reed decided to allow it. For four days the debate raged. There were points of order, appeals, and endless quorum calls. Reed would repeat the same procedure as on the first day, reading the names of the silent Democrats into the journal as "present." Tempers reached such a fevered pitch that, at one point, a knot of Democratic members advanced menacingly down the center aisle toward the speaker's chair, giving the impression that Reed would be physically assaulted. Even the galleries joined in, with spectators and reporters shouting and screaming abuse at the speaker.
All manner of invective was tossed about, with various nicknames being chosen for the presiding officer. "Tyrant," "dictator," and "monster" were among the printable ones. But somewhere along the line, someone shouted "Czar," and that was the one that seemed to stick. From that day forward, he was "Czar" Reed.
Throughout this ordeal, Reed maintained an outward calm, though those who saw him in the privacy of his office could see his hands tremble with suppressed rage. What no one knew at the time was that Reed had already resolved to resign from the House if his effort to change the rules failed. "I had made up my mind that if political life consisted of sitting helplessly in the Speaker's chair and seeing the majority helpless to pass legislation, I had had enough of it and was ready to step down and out," he said later.
That turned out not to be necessary. After four days, the Democrats tried to absent themselves in actuality, refusing to come to the floor when the quorum was called. Two Republicans who were ill were brought into the chamber on cots. Still one vote short. Finally, Representative John Sweney of Iowa, who was en route from his district during most of the battle, suddenly appeared at the door of the chamber with the words "One more, Mr. Speaker!"
The fight was over. The Democrats sullenly returned to the chamber.
And for the always-fretful RINOs who worry that changing the rules now will be turned against them should the Democrats regain the majority at some point (like they wouldn't anyway, and haven't in the past), I invite them to study this excerpt:
Theodore Roosevelt, who would later break with Reed over the annexation of the Philippines, was in awe. He called the breaking of the silent filibuster a reform "of far greater importance" than any piece of legislation. That became evident a few years later when the Democrats retook control of Congress. They immediately threw out "Reed's Rules," reinstituting the silent filibuster. Reed promptly turned it against them with relish. He succeeded in so thoroughly tying up the House that in frustration the Democrats were compelled to bring back Reed's Rules. Declining to gloat, Reed merely observed, "The scene here is a more effective address than any I could make."
The moral of the story? Sometimes bruising, knockdown-dragout political fights are necessary for the upholding of principle and, yes, what is right. And there's nothing wrong with it. It's actually healthy, in fact. We're seeding democracy upon the four winds overseas, yet we Pachyderms fear both its full exercise here at home and objecting to its undermining by a domestic political opposition that no longer believes in it.
But, just as the Middle East couldn't be transformed without war, so the judicial nominaton process cannot be restored without smashing the Democrats where it hurts and putting them in their place. Otherwise, what purpose is served by a Republican majority?
The relevant TR quote is above. And it was a Democrat president of the same era, Grover Cleveland, who said, "What's the use of holding elective office if you don't stand for something?"
Breaking the Donks' resistance to restoring the Judiciary to its constitutional role is a principle reason why the GOP was given the reins of government. If, after all this time and the abject example of the Bush presidency, 'Pubbies still think that playing it safe and not "rocking the boat" will keep them in control, they will deserve every damn last bit of the rude awakening that will be coming their way.
Please read the whole linked article. Then go back and read this portion, and picture Frist and the boys employing it in the here & now:
The new speaker's chance came on January 29, 1889, on a motion over a disputed election. Only 163 members affirmatively answered the quorum call, two short of the necessary 165. Instead of simply leaving it at that, however, Reed turned to the clerk of the House and directed him to "record the names of the following members present and refusing to vote." Reed then began reeling off the list of names of Democrats present in the chamber who had refused to answer when their names were called.
As Tuchman records the scene, "pandemonium broke loose" in the House chamber. It was the beginning of five days of parliamentary tumult. A few Democrats attempted to maintain decorum, demanding formally, "I appeal the decision of the Chair!" Most others, however, were less gracious. They shouted, swore, threatened, and pounded their fists on tables and desks. Nevertheless, Reed went on reading the list of names in a calm, assured voice. When he reached the name of Representative James McCreary of Kentucky, the latter exclaimed "I deny your right, Mr. Speaker, to count me as present!"
Reed abruptly ceased reading and, for a moment, a hush fell on the raucous chamber. In a measured voice, Reed calmly observed, "The Chair is making a statement of fact that the gentleman is present. Does he deny it?" Reed then resumed reading his list of names.
Upon reaching the end, Reed declared that a quorum was present in the chamber. When a Democratic member appealed the ruling, Reed firmly denied the appeal. Every Democrat was on his feet yelling, except for a Texas representative, who was conspicuously sharpening a Bowie knife against the sole of his boot while sitting quietly in his seat.
A Republican member — probably one of those 19th-century RINOs — then moved for a debate on the rule change. Reed decided to allow it. For four days the debate raged. There were points of order, appeals, and endless quorum calls. Reed would repeat the same procedure as on the first day, reading the names of the silent Democrats into the journal as "present." Tempers reached such a fevered pitch that, at one point, a knot of Democratic members advanced menacingly down the center aisle toward the speaker's chair, giving the impression that Reed would be physically assaulted. Even the galleries joined in, with spectators and reporters shouting and screaming abuse at the speaker.
All manner of invective was tossed about, with various nicknames being chosen for the presiding officer. "Tyrant," "dictator," and "monster" were among the printable ones. But somewhere along the line, someone shouted "Czar," and that was the one that seemed to stick. From that day forward, he was "Czar" Reed.
Throughout this ordeal, Reed maintained an outward calm, though those who saw him in the privacy of his office could see his hands tremble with suppressed rage. What no one knew at the time was that Reed had already resolved to resign from the House if his effort to change the rules failed. "I had made up my mind that if political life consisted of sitting helplessly in the Speaker's chair and seeing the majority helpless to pass legislation, I had had enough of it and was ready to step down and out," he said later.
That turned out not to be necessary. After four days, the Democrats tried to absent themselves in actuality, refusing to come to the floor when the quorum was called. Two Republicans who were ill were brought into the chamber on cots. Still one vote short. Finally, Representative John Sweney of Iowa, who was en route from his district during most of the battle, suddenly appeared at the door of the chamber with the words "One more, Mr. Speaker!"
The fight was over. The Democrats sullenly returned to the chamber.
And for the always-fretful RINOs who worry that changing the rules now will be turned against them should the Democrats regain the majority at some point (like they wouldn't anyway, and haven't in the past), I invite them to study this excerpt:
Theodore Roosevelt, who would later break with Reed over the annexation of the Philippines, was in awe. He called the breaking of the silent filibuster a reform "of far greater importance" than any piece of legislation. That became evident a few years later when the Democrats retook control of Congress. They immediately threw out "Reed's Rules," reinstituting the silent filibuster. Reed promptly turned it against them with relish. He succeeded in so thoroughly tying up the House that in frustration the Democrats were compelled to bring back Reed's Rules. Declining to gloat, Reed merely observed, "The scene here is a more effective address than any I could make."
The moral of the story? Sometimes bruising, knockdown-dragout political fights are necessary for the upholding of principle and, yes, what is right. And there's nothing wrong with it. It's actually healthy, in fact. We're seeding democracy upon the four winds overseas, yet we Pachyderms fear both its full exercise here at home and objecting to its undermining by a domestic political opposition that no longer believes in it.
But, just as the Middle East couldn't be transformed without war, so the judicial nominaton process cannot be restored without smashing the Democrats where it hurts and putting them in their place. Otherwise, what purpose is served by a Republican majority?
The relevant TR quote is above. And it was a Democrat president of the same era, Grover Cleveland, who said, "What's the use of holding elective office if you don't stand for something?"
Breaking the Donks' resistance to restoring the Judiciary to its constitutional role is a principle reason why the GOP was given the reins of government. If, after all this time and the abject example of the Bush presidency, 'Pubbies still think that playing it safe and not "rocking the boat" will keep them in control, they will deserve every damn last bit of the rude awakening that will be coming their way.
posted by JASmius at 8:11 PM
<<< Home