Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate 1/5/2011 Live Thread - Filibuster rules debate
C-SPAN ^ | 1/5/2011 | C-SPAN

Posted on 01/05/2011 12:09:54 PM PST by PapaBear3625

Senate is now debating changes to filibuster rule.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government
KEYWORDS: filibuster; senate
Live on C-SPAN.
1 posted on 01/05/2011 12:09:57 PM PST by PapaBear3625
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Senator Pat Roberts is arguing against changes in filibuster rules as preserving Senate minority (Republican) rights.


2 posted on 01/05/2011 12:13:08 PM PST by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

IF they do this...it will come back and bite them hard...when we had the opportunity we did not change the rules...for good reason. IF the rules are changed in 2 yrs. they can kiss their majority goodbye...


3 posted on 01/05/2011 12:20:35 PM PST by shield (A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand;but a fool's heart at his LEFT. Ecc 10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

It does not make sense for them to do this when they don’t have the House which is where everything begins (basically). If they were going to do this, they should have two years ago. Of course, I don’t want them to at all but if they wanted to do this two years ago was the time not now.


4 posted on 01/05/2011 12:27:21 PM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
Any presidental nominations only go to the Senate for confirmation.

Nominations "The president shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States . . . . " U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 2, clause 2

And there is this:

In accordance with the Constitution, the Senate has responsibility for advice and consent to ratification of treaties with other nations that have been negotiated and agreed to by the Executive Branch.

So the Senate will have a lot of power in their hands, without House approval, if they made this rules change.

5 posted on 01/05/2011 12:34:17 PM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator; All
It does not make sense for them to do this when they don’t have the House which is where everything begins (basically). If they were going to do this, they should have two years ago. Of course, I don’t want them to at all but if they wanted to do this two years ago was the time not now.

Its all about judges. They want a few more judges to retire in the next two years and if that happens, they can vote in new ones by stopping any debate with a simple majority instead of the current 60 needed because of the Dem precedent set a few years back. I don't know about anyone else, but I am getting pretty sick of Dems setting the precedents that the Republicans simply decide to abide by.

And I also like how the MSM reports a Republican House Repeal vote as show, but not a word of disgust at the Dems for trying to obliterate the filibuster.
6 posted on 01/05/2011 12:35:40 PM PST by Eagle of Liberty (formally known as Kerretarded....I changed my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Thank you for this. I forgot especially the judges. Hopefully this does not go through then for sure.


7 posted on 01/05/2011 12:35:52 PM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

How many votes do they need to pass this bill? Will they need R votes or just 51?


8 posted on 01/05/2011 12:37:45 PM PST by GoCards (Why me? Why not me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator
The purpose is to allow the Senate to confirm Cabinet and court appointments (Senate confirmation does not need House concurrence) by simple majority vote. It would allow Obama to appoint whoever he wanted to the courts (for life) as long as the Dems approved.

Take this as a way for the Dems to pack the courts with young Leftists before they lose power in 2012, with those leftist judges ruling in favor of the Socialist agenda for the next several decades.

9 posted on 01/05/2011 12:38:10 PM PST by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shield
IF they do this...it will come back and bite them hard...when we had the opportunity we did not change the rules...for good reason. IF the rules are changed in 2 yrs. they can kiss their majority goodbye...

If you have not realized by now, the RATs really do not care how bad they trash the current system and the possibility of having things come back to bite them because they KNOW that they have the MSM in their back pocket to demonize the Republicans ad nauseum when the RATs fall from power. They also realize that the pendulum will most likely swing back.
10 posted on 01/05/2011 12:38:44 PM PST by Eagle of Liberty (formally known as Kerretarded....I changed my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GoCards

They will try to pass the rules change with 51 votes by using procedural slight of hand.


11 posted on 01/05/2011 12:40:03 PM PST by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GoCards

I am thinking only a majority is needed to make a rules change. Usually each new Senate just approves and accept the rules from the previous Senate, and so on. But the Senate does have the option to make changes of the rules at the start of each new Senate session. Rarely ever done though.


12 posted on 01/05/2011 12:41:33 PM PST by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Well thats fair./s Im guessing it will pass with flying colors then.


13 posted on 01/05/2011 12:43:25 PM PST by GoCards (Why me? Why not me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Has anyone brought out the lame cup and saucer line yet?


14 posted on 01/05/2011 12:43:40 PM PST by NonValueAdded (Palin 2012: don't retreat, just reload)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoCards
How many votes do they need to pass this bill? Will they need R votes or just 51?

Well, according to current Standing Rules, it requires 2/3 vote to end a filibuster of a rules change. But Reid has threatened to use the constitutional option, which Byrd cited in 1975 as meaning that each new Senate on the first "day" can make whatever rules they want. Article I, Section V of the Constitution.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

15 posted on 01/05/2011 12:44:43 PM PST by Eagle of Liberty (formally known as Kerretarded....I changed my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
But the Senate does have the option to make changes of the rules at the start of each new Senate session. Rarely ever done though.

Individual Senators like it the way it is. With the current cloture rules, every Senator is a potential swing vote. Makes each individual Senator more important, and generates lots of lobbying and goodies to get his vote.

16 posted on 01/05/2011 12:46:30 PM PST by PapaBear3625 ("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

While the Democrats pull this crap, the media is beating down the Republicans on their alleged promise for bipartisan cooperation with the Democrats.


17 posted on 01/05/2011 12:47:41 PM PST by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

This is about a power grab for the Democrats. I expect it to pass. There’s not much the GOP can do to stop Dingy Harry on this one.


18 posted on 01/05/2011 12:49:29 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

Yup. Bipartisanship works only one way. When the Democrats run the show, like they do in the Senate, they could give a rat’s rear end about bipartisan cooperation. They’re not afraid to take up the “nuclear option” unlike the spineless GOP that was undermined by its own RINOs when it wanted to exercise that option.


19 posted on 01/05/2011 12:52:39 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

I really pray that our new elected class of Senators articulate better than prior ones on what is going on up there and fight this crap. Looking forward to hearing Rubio.

Has anyone seen him on the news lately?


20 posted on 01/05/2011 12:53:24 PM PST by GoCards (Why me? Why not me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
They will try to pass the rules change with 51 votes by using procedural slight of hand.

No sleight of hand required. Rules changes on the first day of congress only require a simple majority.

21 posted on 01/05/2011 12:55:42 PM PST by Bubba Ho-Tep ("More weight!"--Giles Corey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
the spineless GOP that was undermined by its own RINOs when it wanted to exercise that option.

Yep. And where's that Gang of 14 now?
22 posted on 01/05/2011 12:56:12 PM PST by Eagle of Liberty (formally known as Kerretarded....I changed my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

While I do believe the senators should have to do a real filibust and that they shouldn’t be able to place a silent hold on a nominee. Really they should have to vote up or down on all nominees. I wanted that when Bush was President and I still want it today. Maybe that will wake up some people not to vote for their stupid liberal senator because they can really screw up the nation. Also might mean people won’t feel comfortable with the Senate in liberal hands because a few solid conservatives (41) can keep them in check.


23 posted on 01/05/2011 1:04:45 PM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Bubba Ho-Tep
Rules changes on the first day of congress

And a "day" is not one 24 hour period but begins when the Senate is called to session and can be extended.
24 posted on 01/05/2011 1:10:52 PM PST by Eagle of Liberty (formally known as Kerretarded....I changed my name)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

WHAT the Republicans could do is promise to use every trick in the book to shut down the Senate to a crawl. Make every Bill be read front to back, take turns doing talking filibusters, a la Bernie Sanders, on every mundane Bill that is brought up, day after day, hour after hour. I would assign a Republican Senator to take up 5-6 hours of time doing an old fashioned filibuster. The Republicans in the House SHOULD go nuclear on the Democrats in the House as payback.

The Democrats want war. I say give it to them.


25 posted on 01/05/2011 1:11:25 PM PST by LeonardFMason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty

“Yep. And where’s that Gang of 14 now?”

Waiting for the cameras so they can bash Republicans.


26 posted on 01/05/2011 1:46:06 PM PST by A Strict Constructionist (Oligarchy...never vote for the Ivy League candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

where did,
rules change on the first day,
come from?
...

I though that the Senate was a ‘continuing body’
so rules would continue from the
last session, ..unless changed..


27 posted on 01/05/2011 1:46:33 PM PST by Talf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talf
I though that the Senate was a ‘continuing body’ so rules would continue from the last session, ..unless changed..

I believe you are right. Further, I think it takes 2/3rds of the entire senate for a rule change.
28 posted on 01/05/2011 2:03:03 PM PST by Kegger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
Yes, but those provisions in the Constitution were written before Senators were popularly elected.
29 posted on 01/05/2011 2:03:20 PM PST by eCSMaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Talf

Continuing from when? Until when? Who decides?

The Constitution only says that the Senate has the power to set its own rules. The Senate can st them and change them at anytime.


30 posted on 01/05/2011 8:16:11 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Eagle of Liberty

Correct, they have until Jan. 24th. to arm twist enough cowards to get the 51 votes needed to change the rule.


31 posted on 01/05/2011 8:52:22 PM PST by Licensed-To-Carry (Hey Obama! All you have done is awaken a sleeping giant and filled us with a terrible resolve!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

the House goes out of business, every two years,
the Senate does not.

the Senate has in the past,
used ‘last times’ rules.
...which were last changed in 1975.

Biden is going to say ...
hey , new Congress, time to adopt rules..

there is no precedent for that

225 years of Senate tradition,
gone

reason... change rules...2/3rds majority
adopr rules... simple majority


32 posted on 01/05/2011 9:17:31 PM PST by Talf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Talf

A Senate from 1791 or 1891 or 1991 cannot bind the current Senate from the grave EXCEPT by constitutional amendment (which requires far more than just Senate approval)

End of story.

Tradition? Yes
Obligation? No
Prudent? Perhaps


33 posted on 01/06/2011 1:42:12 AM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Talf

Truthfully, the Senate doesn’t need a reason to change their rules. And the filibuster rule has not been there the entire 225 years.


34 posted on 01/06/2011 5:36:52 AM PST by Blood of Tyrants (Islam is the religion of Satan and Mohammed was his minion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: GoCards

The Maine & Alaska R’s can be counted as D’s.


35 posted on 01/06/2011 8:24:08 AM PST by Christian Engineer Mass (Capitol Hill operator 866-727-4894 toll free. Just say which Representative/Senator you want to spea)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson