Posted on 11/11/2004 6:37:18 PM PST by xzins
"Whether he won't lose 5 or 10 or 15 on a vote to change the rule is yet to be seen."
That's my point. Frist is the leader, and it's time for leadership. He needs to figure out how to do this. It's not 50-49-1 anymore, no more excuses.
If it is the same 5 and there are no new defections, then the rules changes would win a 50-50 tie with VP Cheney breaking the tie.
Unless now we see what Frist is dangling in front of Specter.
That "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" appears in the Constitution.
Sounds like a plan to me.
And the Constitution does not proscribe or prescribe the rules for the senate. The filibuster is very very old, going back to the beginning of the republic although the term was not used until the mid-19th century.
Probably...Frist is useless.
While I abhor this practice and we can debate the Constitutionality of the Senate rules all day long, by the terms of the current ruls the above statement is correct. Since S. Res. 138 proposes to change the Senate rules, it would be subject to the requirements of Senate Rule XXII which covers closing off of debate, i.e. cloture. Debate on all questions before the Senate can continue ad infinitum unless 60 Senators vote to close off the debate...EXCEPT FOR MOTIONS DEALING WITH RULES CHANGES...which requires 67 votes to close off. The only escape is if the Senators agree my unanimous consent to set aside the rule. Figure the odds of the Dems doing that?
We have a bigger and younger bench. The RATs are mostly a bunch of old farts. I would love to see Teddy in some sort of swoon on the Senate floor. Go Teddy GO!
Why filibuster is unconstitutional
No, the cleaner constitutional argument is not to attack the filibuster head-on, but to raise serious objection to its entrenchment--that is, to the Senate rule that prevents a new Senate from changing the cloture rule without a two-thirds vote. Senate Rule V provides that the rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next unless amended by two-thirds of those present and voting.This violates fundamental law as old as Sir William Blackstone, who observed in the mid-18th century that "Acts of Parliament derogatory from the power of subsequent parliaments bind not." Likewise, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the legislature does not have the power to bind itself in the future. As the Court stated in Ohio Life Ins. and Trust Co. v. Debolt (1853), for the political process to remain representative and accountable, "every succeeding Legislature possesses the same jurisdiction and power . . . as its predecessors. The latter must have the same power of repeal and modification which the former had of enactment, neither more nor less."
Frist doesn't have the votes in the current caucus to change the rules or break the filibuster. It doesn't matter who is Majority Leader; you need the votes.
In the next Congress, as you say, we'll have more votes. I am by no means confident that there are enough votes to go nucular and modify or eliminate the filibuster over judges or Justices. Senators know that if the filibuster ends, they'll each lose leverage.
Of course, it's easier for many on this thread to just place all the blame on Frist. These folks just don't understand the Senate.
see #71
I will say this,if the Republicans, with the majority they now have, cannot change the Senate rules at or before a new Congress conveins, they may as well pack up and go home.
You can bet your a$$ if the Democrats, with the majority the Republicans now have, wanted to change the rules, they would get changed.
As I have said before and take no pride in saying again, Janet Reno has more ba77s than all the Republican Senators, excepting the ones newly elcted, combined. Sad, Sad,and Tragic.
Are we prepared to give up this option ourselves? Remember that we had been in the minority for a long time, and it's not inconceivable that we could be again.
I don't know if we should give it up. But to differentiate judicial filibusters from ordinary filibusters elevates power of principle.
Snowe, Chafee, Spectre, who was the only one? Cannot be depended on. McCain is questionable. This would leave us a 50 majority with Cheney as the deciding vote, unless a few Dems cross lines. It would be preferable if we had a few more reliable Senators but as it stands we barely squeak out a conservative majority. If the Reps are going to do something to stop the Filibusters, now may be the best time.
I'm withholding judgement on Frist as he didn't have an actual conservative majority last session. This time I expect a fight. If true Frist will not run in '06, and that he has aspirations to run for Prez, he is perfectly positioned to lead this battle. How he would go about ending these filibusters, I'm not sure. The information is conflicting on altering Senate law but they have bright minds available. I expect them to be consulted on how best to proceed.
There is no way to change the rules if a majority of the Senators don't want to do so, no matter what procedural tricks or tactics are tried. It doesn't matter if there are 100 Republican Senators; if 51 say no rules change, then there is no rule change no matter who is Majority Leader.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.