By FITSNews || That didn’t take long …
Less than a week into the 2010 legislative session, South Carolina’s “Republican” leaders in the State Senate are already caving to the “minority” party on major legislation, delivering an early victory to filibustering Democrats and crippling the Palmetto State’s ability to fight the implementation of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional socialized medicine proposal.
Thanks to Senate President Glenn McConnell, Finance Chairman Hugh Leatherman and grandstanding GOP Majority Leader Harvey Peeler, the S.C. Senate adjourned on Thursday without voting on a bill that would have asserted South Carolina’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment as it relates to the socialized medicine plan currently being negotiated behind closed doors by Democratic leaders in Washington.
Drafted by State Senators Mick Mulvaney and Mike Rose, the amendment would have effectively blocked the implementation of “Obamacare” in South Carolina and set up a Constitutional challenge to its legality.
The failure of the measure to even obtain a vote means that a Democratic filibuster has succeeded – a day after Peeler gave a rousing Winston Churchill-style speech on the merits of standing firm in support of individual liberties and taxpayer rights.
“We will stand strong against an overreaching government because we do have a choice and with this resolution, we ask the Attorney General of South Carolina to fight any attempt to force a socialized health care plan on our state and its taxpayers,” Peeler said in a sternly-worded statement released Wednesday afternoon. “We will stand today, not just against the Democrats, but against a government that intrudes on our rights and our freedoms. We demand action today because by remaining silent, we signal our surrender.”
Less than twenty-four hours later, though, Peeler and his RINO colleagues were apparently tired of standing. And so they did more than just signal surrender, they actually surrendered.
Republicans lacked the votes to end the Democratic filibuster thanks to defections by Leatherman and three other “Republicans,” Sen. Jakie Knotts, Billy O’Dell and Luke Rankin. Ironically, Knotts, O’Dell and Rankin were all co-sponsors of the original legislation, but they refused to vote for cloture – thus allowing the Democratic filibuster against the bill to continue.
Knotts is one of the Senate’s legendary RINOs, while Leatherman, O’Dell and Rankin are all Democratic Senators who switched their party label when it became electorally advantageous.
Knotts, O’Dell and Leatherman all voted in favor of adjournment, too, while Rankin did not vote.
From Thursday’s Senate Journal, here’s a list of the RINOs who voted in favor of adjournment …
Thomas Alexander
Paul Campbell
John Courson
Ronnie Cromer
Wes Hayes
Jakie Knotts
Hugh Leatherman
Glenn McConnell
Billy O’Dell
Greg Ryberg
And here’s a list of Republicans who wanted to keep fighting in support of the amendment …
Lee Bright
Kevin Bryant
Chip Campsen
Ray Cleary
Tom Davis
Mike Fair
Larry Grooms
Shane Martin
Shane Massey
Mick Mulvaney
Harvey Peeler
Mike Rose
Phil Shoopman
David Thomas
Danny Verdin
Obviously, Peeler’s name is included with the good guys on this one, but sources tell FITS he was instrumental in engineering the “RINO cave” and that his vote was purely “C.Y.A.”
We’d also like to point out that Sen. David Thomas typically votes with the RINOs, but is currently running for U.S. Congress and as a result has to appear to be as “conservative” as possible. Also, Sen. Shane Martin frequently votes with the conservatives, but is reportedly always available to the “RINO King” Sen. Hugh Leatherman if his vote is needed on a particular measure – which in this case it obviously wasn’t.
UPDATE: Click here for more on this first RINO sellout of the 2010 session.
By Crooner January 14, 2010 at 3:08 pm
I understand we are less than a year away from the sesqui-centennial observance of SC’s seccession from the union. Looks like some thought it would be fun to try it again.
I’m glad posturing Republicans didn’t put the state in a position of spending money (especially in these tight times) on a loser of a lawsuit.
By StupidShouldHurtMore (SSHM) January 14, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Interesting to see that Ryberg voted with the “RhINOs.” Hmmm . . .
By Weighing In January 14, 2010 at 3:22 pm
i was thinking same thing SSHM….maybe he realized that this resolution has no impact and is symbolic at best and they are wasting time and money.
Maybe the real story is the so name RINO’s and Democrats are actually offering some taxpayer savings. We shouldn’t be wasting state money and time debating something that has no binding effect or meaning.
By Skidmarks January 14, 2010 at 3:37 pm
If our Atty. Gen. gets the go-ahead for this lawsuit, he will hire a pricey, best-buds law firm to handle it. And he’ll pound the podium at every gubernatorial candidate event to advertise how he is the only one standing between us and socialism.
If you really think, the as yet unpassed Health Care Reform act will violate the 9th and 10th Amendments, hold your water and hope that some other state or entity files the test suit.
By freddie guy January 14, 2010 at 3:48 pm
FITS:
Where were the “William Wallace Caucus” votes when an amendment would have added the Ordinance of Secession to the resolution? Want to truly be independent from the Feds AND grandstand grandly, lets secede! (That’ll show Washington and get Mulavaney mucho! press)
Where were the “William Wallace Caucus” when the idea of amending the bill to change auto insurance laws to DECREASE government intervention? Nope, lobbying industry’s got ‘em by the balls! Too much for the “William Wonka Caucus” to swallow…
They are not fighting for anything, but MSM print!
Won’t read about THAT clip of the Senate in FITSNews…
Fred
By Liberty For Me January 14, 2010 at 4:46 pm
freddie guy…You are totally right.This grandstanding got them zero brownie points.What the hell has to happen before people kick these assholes all the way out of the state…..
By james January 14, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Probably a smart republican move–if it had passed, democrats at the federal level have a stronger argument to push a national health exchange rather than implement a state by state health exchange
By bigdeal January 14, 2010 at 5:51 pm
And just what is this adment going to do???? Holds no water until something is passed in DC and then it can be fought…
By T4 January 14, 2010 at 6:37 pm
To paraphrase Charlie Wilson, “Voters don’t win elections, contributors do.” The Republicans pushing for this lame amendment know that it’s totally pointless; but, in order to win elections, you must have money. In other words, it’s imperative that these republicans champion the cause for “liberty” – to whom this “liberty” applies no one knows; but, my first guess would be large corporations and businesses: the “republican facade.”
By No Way! January 14, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Send them home! I will remember these guys in the future as well. Plan to send them home too!
By Angela January 21, 2010 at 9:15 am
I’m a definite conservative! Yet for the life of me I have still to figure out why and how all these ‘amendments’ should be attached to bills that haven’t even passed yet. I admit I’m not accustomed to this business (as usual). I’m certainly no expert on the way that our government does it’s bidding and bribing. This ‘amendment’ may certainly give us more leverage against forced and unConstitutional ‘health’care, but is it right to arm twist and stuff bills, that haven’t even been passed yet? I don’t care whose side you are on. By there mere definition, shouldn’t ‘amendments’ be voted on separately and after the bills are passed in the first place? These fellows can’t even figure out the most basic of rights and AND WHO THEY COME FROM! Shouldn’t they just slow down and take it one step at a time from now on? Having our Sovereignty bill go through should have been the priority. There will assuredly be many more issues then ‘health’care that are coming our way. Issues that we will want to amend the bill with later anyway. At least then we will be able to see exactly, piece by piece, what it is that the ‘representatives’ believe, if they are forced to vote on each item.
Pingback: Fearlessness :: sc politics :: The Character of Jakie Knotts
Pingback: Much Ado About Arizona | Political Vise Blog
Pingback: Much Ado About Arizona