Skip to comments.Filibuster Follies
Posted on 01/06/2011 7:20:22 PM PST by Kaslin
Leadership: Waking up to a thinner majority, the Senate majority leader suddenly finds the filibuster a threat to democracy. So he decides that the first legislative day will be the day the Senate stood still.
Only in the Bible and Harry Reid's Senate can a day last more than 24 hours. As we predicted a week ago, the slightly less powerful majority leader, on the first legislative day in the 112th Congress, executed plans to make that "day" last until Jan. 25 so he can stage a legislative coup and neuter the filibuster rule that protects the right of the majority.
Senate rules changes can occur with a simple majority on the first legislative day of a new Congress. On Wednesday, Democrats used an old procedural rule and simply did not declare the first legislative day to be over. It will last through Jan. 24 and a two-week Senate recess. Time is needed to figure out the details of changing filibuster rules to continue pushing the Democratic agenda.
Claiming the GOP has used the filibuster to shut down vital legislation repeatedly, Democrats want to allow only 51 votes to shut off debate and proceed to a vote. Republicans counter that the filibuster has become increasingly necessary since Reid usually refuses to let Republican amendments fix bad bills.
In 2005, when Senate Republicans ruled the roost, Reid was a valiant defender of the filibuster. "Some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power," he said then. "They think they're wiser than our Founding Fathers. I doubt that's true."
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
That was then. This is now. Dingy Harry wants to continue as though he still had a super-majority. He wants to make the Senate operate like the House.
Heck, make it 65 votes and put it in the Constitution.
This is really bad.
What it means is that anytime one party controls the house, the senate and the white house, it’ll be able ram through its agenda with no resistance.
It will make us closer to a parliamentary system.
I’m a bit confused. Why do we care what Dingy Harry can ram thru? Will the House pass anything Harry forces through the Senate over the GOP objections?
When the GOP held the House and Senate there was much frustration and talk about doing away with the filibuster at least for judges. The GOP of course did not have the guts to follow through.
So I say let the Dims do this for the GOP two years before the GOP takes back the Senate.
What would be the cost? Some Judges that might get through who the GOP probably did not have the moxy to stop anyway. But in two years, then the GOP can have their majority in the Senate.
Additionally, without the filibuster rule the GOP can possibly get the repeal of ObamaCare to the floor and get the 4 Dim defectors to repeal it. Conrad, Ben Nelson, Manchin, Tester and Webb are possibilities. Wouldn’t there be some irony to that?
Won’t this make it easier to repeal Obamacare in the Senate? GOP would only need to get simple majority, not 60 votes. Possible, if enough Rat senators start getting cold feet on not voting for repeal, with 60 votes they can hide with other Rats in it not coming up to vote.
Not sure I understand why we’re opposed to this.
Simple answer: Filibuster the rule change!!!!
“Simple answer: Filibuster the rule change!!!!”
Thats what I said. Just filibuster it. I hope they do.
What about all the holding up of legislation and judicial appointees when the Repubs had the majority in the Senate? Dems didn’t seem to mind having power, via the filibuster, to shut down the Republicans...
Oh - yeah.. The DemocRAT party is the party of double-standards.
There is a specific trick that Reid has in mind. Obama is renominating all of his radical judicial nominees. They require Senate approval, and the House has nothing to do with it.
This is even more dangerous than anything that they did in the first half of his term, since judges get a lifetime appointment.
It is critical that this be publicized.
When the Pubbies had close to 60, everyone was all aflutter about how important it was that the minority not get steamrolled, to the point that you had to do what the minority wanted or else. Now we're tearing down rules that have endured for centuries. What a bunch of pricks.
In that scenario, the GOP would probably put it back to make sure the National Socialists got a fair shake. Ever notice how solicitous the pubbies are of the Dems when they're in charge?
They are blowing smoke for the base.
As I understand it, changes to rules are not subject to a filibuster.
The House should threaten to defund the Senate.
“As I understand it, changes to rules are not subject to a filibuster”
Yes actually I think that is true.