AUDIO: BARNEY FRANK WANTS TO CHANGE THE RULES...AGAIN

The far left looney Democrats are simply too emotionally invested in this health care monstrosity to stop now. The doubling down continues. When it comes to the Super Majority in the senate necessary to overcome a filibuster, Barney wants to do away with it at a time when it's inconvenient for passage of the health care monstrosity.

Barney provides further audacity by invoking the Constitution to support his claim. Uh, Barney, do you really want to go there at this point?



Now for those wondering what Barney's opinion was back in 2005 when Bush's judicial nominees were getting filibustered constantly, I found this excerpt from the Boston Herald on Free Republic although the link to the actual article is dead.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, who publicly crusaded against Senate filibusters 12 years ago, now says he opposes banning filibusters against judicial nominees - the so-called "nuclear option" fueling a bruising Capitol Hill showdown.

"I would vote against changing the filibuster rule right now,'' Frank (D-Newton) told the Herald in a telephone interview Thursday. Frank explained he still supports an "across-the-board'' ban against all filibusters, but he opposes the Republican "nuclear option'' because it only outlaws filibusters against judicial nominees.

"I object to (a filibuster ban) being used in a very specific instance,'' Frank said. "If they make an improvement going forward, I would maybe look at it differently.''

Frank's comments come as the Senate braces for a showdown vote over President Bush's filibustered judicial picks, a battle that could affect federal justices from the district level all the way to the next Supreme Court nominee.

In 1993, Frank led a public fight to end Senate filibusters, asserting in a Washington Post op-ed piece: "I believe legislative bodies should scrupulously abide by two principles: complete openness and majority rule. The filibuster is a godsend to potential gridlockers.''

Republicans at the time were using filibusters to block President Clinton's agenda in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Today, it is frustrated Democrats in the GOP-run Senate who are using filibuster tactics to block Bush's judicial nominees, whom they consider to be too conservative.

The time-honored Senate practice of the filibuster, whereby lawmakers can block a nominee or a bill by refusing to stop debating, has sparked acrimony on Capitol Hill expected to reach a climax this week. Sixty of 100 Senate votes are required to kill a filibuster.

Republicans, who accuse Democrats of blocking Bush's judge picks for sheer partisan advantage, want a straight up-or-down majority vote on the president's court picks. Their bill would outlaw filibusters against judicial nominees.

Frank scoffed at Republican claims Bush is being unfairly shortchanged on nominees.

The Newton Democrat recalled the nomination of former Bay State Gov. William F. Weld to be ambassador to Mexico. GOP senators blocked a vote on Weld because they questioned his conservative credentials. "Why didn't the Republicans apply the same standard to Bill Weld?'' Frank asked.

Quite obvious that Barney is AGAINST the filibuster when Democrats have a majority but not a super-majority and he's FOR it when Republicans have the majority but not a super-majority. In 2005, the Republicans had a majority of 55 senators. At that time, Barney re-calibrated his position by saying the filibuster should NOT be banned in the case of judicial nominees. So, Barney was for the filibuster after he was against it and before he was against it again. Beautiful.

Let's also not forget that while the Social Security reform initiative Bush attempted was also met with Democrat resistance in the form of a threat to filibuster. Wouldn't you love to know what Barney's view were on that one too?

Video via Breitbart