About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Fox's Cameron rebuts right-wing attack on "Slaughter solution": "Deeming has been used, literally, for centuries"

March 16, 2010 10:41 am ET

From the March 16 edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Right-wing media attack "Slaughter solution" as unprecedented, but GOP "set new records" for its use

Beck says it is a "new idea" that Congress can pass health care "without even voting on it"


Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by soze169880 (March 16, 2010 10:48 am ET)
      4  
      Into the Hole with Shep, ya independent-thinking pinko.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dogbreath (March 16, 2010 10:52 am ET)
      2  
      This whole thing is pretty crazy. It doesn't quite match up with the Schoolhouse Rock cartoon, "I'm Just a Bill" does it? They might have to rewrite that song to include wimpy Democrats and blowhard, obstructionists Republicans.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Sharpe (March 16, 2010 3:02 pm ET)
        1  
        You realize that cartoon was meant to educated 10 year olds right? They dont call politics a game for nothing. Campaigning, legislating, leading - it all a game. Its all a show really put on for the public. The behind the scenes stuff is far more messy. Its just being heavily reported this time around and there is bitter partisanship but this is washington and this is why a lot of people dont like or trust them. The dems brought this on themselves though
        Report Abuse
    • Author by IRONY 101 (March 16, 2010 11:11 am ET)
      7 1
      If Sarah Palin was President she would just abolish all these tricky rules...and make it simple, for freedom-loving Americans. ;>)
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dogbreath (March 16, 2010 11:14 am ET)
        3  
        By waving her magic wand and writing, "I am the dictator," on her hand. :)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (March 16, 2010 11:21 am ET)
          3  
          She wouldn't use the word dictator (and not just because she's unsure of it's meaning.) She'd probably use decider.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by billcnc (March 16, 2010 3:51 pm ET)
           
        When will you realize that when an Obstructionist (formerly known as republicans) uses words like Freedom, Liberty, Patriotism, etc. They are not talking about the peoples of this country, .. they are really talking about, is really all about the advancement of the Corporatocracy Government they are trying to implement.

        Isn't it just GRAND that the Obstructionist (formerly known as republicans) can take a VERY meaningful word and just turn it into just another four letter word!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by GBU-15 (March 16, 2010 11:30 am ET)
      4 1
      Hey it's just politics folks. If it was the GOP pulling these shenanigans just how pointed would the criticism be coming from Teabag TV? The GOP'ers have used just about every kind of legislative slight of hand available to them and it's crickets from the Media. If it gets the job done and it's legit. I say go for it!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DeirdreFlanagan6 (March 16, 2010 1:50 pm ET)
        2  
        Through all the Bush years of illegal and un-Constitutional actions, it's damn about time the Democratic Party acts like they have the power.....move along and use all legal means.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by DeirdreFlanagan6 (March 16, 2010 1:50 pm ET)
        2  
        Through all the Bush years of illegal and un-Constitutional actions, it's damn about time the Democratic Party acts like they have the power.....move along and use all legal means.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by grmce (March 16, 2010 12:02 pm ET)
      2  
      I'm not familiar with the technicalities of U.S. legislative procedures but here in Australia we have regulations and subordinate legislation which are deemed law unless the parliament objects. This means that parliament is not running around in circles dealing with interminable obscure minutiae.

      Sounds like what is happening here is working on a similar principle - in that in this case something is deemed to have been passed in order to enable its amendment to proceed. It all catches up at the end.

      Of course the whole thing would have worked much better if the Senate didn't have that dopey 60 vote requirement on a procedural vote to actually bring a bill to the floor - talk about speed humps. I see an awful lot of checks in your standing orders, but bugger all balance.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by dogbreath (March 16, 2010 12:14 pm ET)
        5 1
        Most Americans are completely ignorant of parliamentary procedure. They think, especially on the right, that if it isn't in the Constitution then it shouldn't be done. However, what they fail to realize is that the Constitution, as brillant as it is, doesn't lay down the specifics of how the Congress is to function. It is the foundation of the building, so to speak, while the actual decor must be formulated with time. It is much like the law, in that regard.

        I am not aware of this procedure either, but I certainly don't doubt its existence and the fact it has been used many, many times.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bludog1 (March 16, 2010 1:04 pm ET)
            8
          You would be right except for one thing. Article 1 Section 7 prescribes the way legislation is supposed to pass the two Houses of Congress. Back in the 70s Congress abridged that process with the inclusion of the "self executing" rule. It has been challenged in court and upheld at the appellate level. Here is the kicker, while it has been used over the years by both parties, it has never been used on legislation of t his magnitude. That is one of two problems that people seem to have with it. The other is that it is being used because there simply are not enough people who want to record their vote as affirmative on this healthcare package.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by coastingonthecoast (March 16, 2010 1:53 pm ET)
               
            so there's nothing in the rules that says they can't use it on this legislation. then go for it.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by voltaire (March 16, 2010 2:00 pm ET)
            4  
            Um, uh, health care reform already passed the Senate with 60 votes and the House with a majority. You can look it up (and the names of those who voted affirmatively). BTW, it is indeed a sign of how the Republicans and conservatives are writing the public narrative these days in that there is a focus only on the uses of reconciliation and this House rule (both of which have been routinely used by Republicans in the past), and not on the Republicans' increased and reflexive use of the filibuster. The filibuster has been used more by the Republicans since they lost the Senate in 2006. It is now accepted that everything in the Senate, not just cloture votes, requires a 60-person vote. If you think that the Republicans, if the positions were reversed, wouldn't use reconciliation or other rules to pass bills "of this magnitude" you have been sold a bill of goods. Wait, they have. Consider the magnitude of the Bush tax cuts on the size of the deficit and how it affected economic and social policy. And you can look it up.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by n'est-ce pas (March 16, 2010 2:24 pm ET)
            6  
            What is it you think is happening here? You know what the effective Constitutional mandate for the legislative process is?
            1. Must be a quorum
            2. Majority rules.
            Now, that first one isn't generally a problem, so we can dispense with that. Number two, however, seems to be in a bit of trouble from your side. Democrats are the majority. They're the majority, by far. So, Article 1 Section 7 says, "Suck it!" You lost. You get to sit down and shut up while the majority (that's me) passes legislation that will extend health care to 31 million people who can't otherwise receive care.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Another_Cat (March 16, 2010 3:00 pm ET)
            3  
            You posted this statement before and I corrected then: Article 1 Section 7 does not prescribe anything more than the very basics of passing a bill out of congress to the President's desk. It specifically states that the procedural rules will be determined by each house. There is nothing there to support the statement that the self-executing rule is unconstitutional.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by Another_Cat (March 16, 2010 3:00 pm ET)
            5  
            You posted this statement before and I corrected then: Article 1 Section 7 does not prescribe anything more than the very basics of passing a bill out of congress to the President's desk. It specifically states that the procedural rules will be determined by each house. There is nothing there to support the statement that the self-executing rule is unconstitutional.
            Report Abuse
    • Author by Turk72 (March 16, 2010 2:28 pm ET)
      3  
      I actually find it refreshing that the Democrats in the house are not willing to vote for the senate bill without the appropriate "fixes" garaunteed. What I think is hilarious is the names the wingnuts keep coming up with to try and make these procedures sound scary, "Slaughter Solution," I mean really?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Major Tom (March 16, 2010 3:13 pm ET)
        2  
        I almost think we should adopt those re-branding tactics... I mean the 'Texas textbook massacre' has a catchy ring to it... Or maybe left leaning pundits should just saw Texas has used the 'nuclear option' on education... Somebody get Frank Luntz on the line!
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Sharpe (March 16, 2010 2:58 pm ET)
      3  
      Description of rule and examples of when it was used:

      http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/PDF/self_executing.pdf

      How come I am not a reported but i can find this stuff out on the internet faster than I can hear it actually being reported accurately on any station including mcnbc who has called it a trick or acted like its never been used on anything controversial. Wrong on both accounts

      Report Abuse
    • Author by kydem09 (March 16, 2010 3:20 pm ET)
        5
      Is MMfA finally relenting and relying on the fair and balanced reporting of FNC to bolster its argument?
      Report Abuse