Senate 1/5/2011 Live Thread - Filibuster rules debate

C-SPAN ^ | 1/5/2011 | C-SPAN

[PapaBear3625]

Senate is now debating changes to filibuster rule.

[PapaBear3625]

Live on C-SPAN.

[PapaBear3625]

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

[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...

[napscoordinator]

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.

[rawhide]

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.

[Eagle of Liberty]

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.

[napscoordinator]

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

[GoCards]

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

[PapaBear3625]

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.

[Eagle of Liberty]

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.

[PapaBear3625]

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

[rawhide]

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.

[GoCards]

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

[NonValueAdded]

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

[Eagle of Liberty]

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.

[PapaBear3625]

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.

[Gene Eric]

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

[goldstategop]

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.

[goldstategop]

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.

[GoCards]

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?