Democrats Seek To Eliminate Filibuster So They Can Jam Through Their Radical Agenda In Their..

Ace of Spades ^ | April 22, 2010 | Ace

[ocr1]

Democrats Seek To Eliminate Filibuster So They Can Jam Through Their Radical Agenda In Their Last Months Of Power

So far this is only on the GOP's Senate blog:

Senate Democrats Gather In The Rules Committee To Eliminate The Filibuster, Which They Previously Called One “Of The Most Treasured And Cherished Traditions Of The United States Senate.”

I don't know how serious this is. I thought -- maybe wrongly -- that it takes two-thirds to change the rules of the Senate, so this might just be posturing by the Democrats (and posturing of outrage and dire consequences by Republicans).

I don't know. Asking Jack now.

It's Possible: enoxo writes:

Senate rules require 67 votes to change the rules of the Senate. However, it’s actually quite possible for 50 Senators—if backed by the Vice President—to have elements of existing procedural deemed unconstitutional.

The US court system neither will nor should rule on things like the constitutionality of a de facto supermajority rule. But this is precisely why you have a President of the Senate (i.e., a Vice President) and I think it would be perfectly plausible for Joe Biden to say that by specifying supermajority voting for certain purposes (treaties, veto overrides, constitutional amendments) the constitution is clearly assuming majority rule for other purposes. Then it would take a majority of Senators to back up Biden’s ruling. And low and behold, a return to majority rule

Ah. So they're just going to have the Vice President start declaring things unconstitutional?

[ccmay]

Fine. That will make it all so much easier to reverse when we have both houses of Congress and the Presidency in just a couple of years.

[BenKenobi]

Silly wabbit don’t you know that filibusters are for Democrats?

[sr4402]

It's called the Nuclear Option. The majority calls for the parliamentarian for a change of the rules. I think it takes 50% to change the rules. The only problem is that this ticks off the long term senators as they know the next majority party can change the rules in their favor the next time.

Call it the Rule of Unintended Consequences.

[slapshot]

what consequences? Spineless wussified rinos like grahm, Snowe, Collins, Lugar, ad nauseum standing up and jamming through something against their Dear Friends across the aisle??

[FroggyTheGremlim]

Remember when they all made fun of Sarah Palin when she said the VP is the President of the Senate? I remember.

Hah! They said. She’s so dumb. Doesn’t even know the Constitution.

[hoosier hick]

The US court system neither will nor should rule on things like the constitutionality of a de facto supermajority rule.

My objection to this characterization is that if the use/abuse of Senate rules result in a violation of a delineated Constitutional requirement, it should be challenged in court. The threat of a filibuster against a Supreme Court nominee is such a case. The Constitution clearly calls for a majority vote, so a filibuster on a nominee is a violation. Neither party will challenge, though, as both want to be able to use it to torpedo nominees.....

hh

[chris_bdba]

Exactly! We can over turn everything with 51 votes then change the rules back to needing 60!

[Eagle Eye]

Personally, I think that someone ought to ******* about two dozen Democratic senators and see what they have to say after that.