Talk About Platner’s Other Perversions and Creepiness; Leave His VA Stuff Out of...
Maine Führer: Graham Platner Wins Dem Primary
So Long, Nancy Mace
Platner Is No Nazi, but Hegseth on D-Day Is; We Get a Lesson...
When Leadership Loses Its Moral Compass
Our Informational World Is Getting Smaller
Kristen Welker Insults President Trump With 'No Evidence' Guff
An Obama-Era Border Crosser
More Money Won’t Fix Our Schools. Mississippi Data Proves It.
College Grads Hurt by H-1B Visas
Fight Night at 1600: The Outrage Industry Meets the Octagon
June Belongs to the Nuclear Family, Not LGBTQ Activists
Sometimes Justice Does Prevail
Karmelo Anthony Has Just Been Handed His Sentence
NJ Moves to Criminalize Interference With Abortion and 'Gender-Affirming Care' Procedures
Tipsheet

Just Wondering . . .

Just Wondering . . .
If the Democrats can use reconciliation to pass health care "reform" that the public hates, does that mean that a Republican Congress and President would someday be free to use reconciliation to achieve legislative goals like reducing the unionization of the federal workforce, diminishing the power of trial lawyers (through tort reform) and passing social security reform using the same procedural device?
Advertisement


No one, of course, is claiming that Republicans would do those things (nor should they, if public opposition to them were as vehement and as consistent as the opposition to ObamaCare.  One party, at least, should still care about ruling with the consent of the governed).  But that's not the issue.  The issue is: Would the Democrats have a problem with a brave new world where the Senate filibuster is essentially set aside at the whim of the majority party?

And does President Obama care to comment?  After all, a precedent for the future will bind everyone . . . and Democrats will have him to thank for it.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement