Skip to comments.Boehner - Filibuster rule change bills 'dead on arrival'
Posted on 11/29/2012 9:03:06 PM PST by Arthurio
House Speaker John Boehner, Ohio Republican, made it clear that any bill that came to the House from the upper chamber as a result of Senate Democrats changing the rules on the filibuster would be "dead on arrival." In a statement released from Speaker Boehner's office, the Ohio GOP'er remarked:
Senate Democrats attempt to break Senate rules in order to change Senate rules is clearly designed to marginalize Senate Republicans and their constituents while greasing the skids for controversial partisan measures. I question the wisdom of this maneuver, especially at a time when cooperation on Capitol Hill is critical, and fully support Leader McConnells efforts to protect minority rights, which are an essential part of our constitutional tradition. Any bill that reaches a Republican-led House based on Senate Democrats heavy-handed power play would be dead on arrival.
Read more: PICKET: Boehner - Filibuster rule change bills 'dead on arrival' - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/nov/29/picket-boehner-filibuster-rule-change-bills-dead-a/#ixzz2Dg9fMZKU Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Well, that’s good.. but I think the bigger aim of Nuking the filibuster is to pack the courts with extreme leftists.
It’s like being around 550 million years ago and witnessing the emergence of the first chordates.
OMG Boner is showing a backbone?
Yeah, well, talk is cheap Boner.
Go threaten to kick Harry’s @ss and then maybe I’ll believe ya.
Damn well better be DOA
I don't think this means anything, another empty threat as Bohner has a history of caving.
The reason why Dems would change those rules now is to embarrass the Senate R minority by pitting them between general voters and their primary opponents in an attempt to keep the Senate in 2016.
The Senate minority would have to really filibuster on public display to kill a bill with <50 unless they had significant Dem defectors, That would be used against them in the general election, And Reid is great as forcing those votes
...would be “dead on arrival.”
Those mean old Republicans. No wonder nothing gets done in Washington. /s (Let’s hope that it is true!)
Yea. Like a broken clock.
Beware America!!! Boner does this just before he gives away more American rights and freedoms.
We have no opposition party. It died when Reagan died.
I think he trys to sound tough, then gives in at the final bell. I think that because I can’t remember any battle he actually won with Obama.
good john, maybe you might have learned something.
we’ll hold your feet to the fire to this statement.
and to whoever you borrowed the one ball from to get half a bag to say something like this, thanks for the donation.
Too bad. I want to get rid of the filibuster rule.
It cuts both ways.
the house can change the makeup of the judiciary, impeach judges and add or remove circuits of courts as they please..
perhaps the time has finally come for the house to do it’s job...
We have to ignore the MSM; and quit “hoping” they’ll change. It’s futile; for whatever reason, and the idea of ever being “popular” with them is a waste. MSM is a waste.
I think the Republicans have FINALLY figured out that our president is attempting a Marxist takeover of the federal government. Republicans would not have much of a future in a communist government.
One problem with conservatism is it tends to be backward looking. We’re not going to return to the past. It isn’t possible. We win when we’re future looking and bring that positive vision into play.
Romney failed to convince American voters that he was a viable alternative to Obama. Women particularly rejected his message. Why?
Nicely said, I completely agree.
Why would the House have a vote on filibuster rules in the Senate? The filibuster is not in the Constitution either. McC complains about weaking it, but McC rarely uses it anyway. Neither did his predecessors. Senators don’t like to stay in session around the clock for real filibusters. McC and Boehner are total sell-outs, based on their past behavior.
The House can’t make such judicial changes now, for Reid would not bring them up. Depending on Boehner is as useless as a one-legged clothespin.
OK, I see your point. We can “trust” Boehner but will he “verify”, in Reagan’s words, that trust?
in regards to the judiciary, the house does not need the senate to do these things.. if they choose to impeach a judge, then it goes to the senate for trial, but to redistrict and rearrange the courts, the senate has no say, nor does fubo...
this power is delegated to the house alone
Every time I read that Boehner’s speaking I envision a yapping chihuahua.
Never would have thought it would require legislation to change Senate rules. Couldn’t the Senate just handle such rule changes internally?(with 60 votes of course)
We never support these guys when they try to make at least a stab at doing the right thing, so why should they care about our opinion (which is always negative)? Negativity has gotten us where we are today, which is not a good thing.
Yes, the filibuster can be a very nasty weapon in the hands of the Dems, but we certainly don’t need them changing the rule now when it is our only defense.
It’s pretty obvious that the Dems are expecting the GOP, even in the Senate, to stand up and fight back this time around and want to eliminate any possibility of their doing so.
The republicans will cave in. That’s what republicans do. So, it really doesn’t matter if the filibuster gets jettisoned. With it or without it, the democrats will gain due to our spineless, supposedly, “severely” conservative party that gave us a loser, liberal presidential candidate.
At least we could get the end of the filibuster out of all this phony republican tough talk.
You aren’t going to like the answer, but I will give it.
Until the Republicans drop their obsession with abortion, they will lose the vote among women.
If I were in D.C., I would have DESTROYED Reid by now. The R’s are cowards.
You’re correct, but it isn’t their obsession with abortion, but their obsession with zero tolerance absolutism. Whenever you have sharp disagreement on an issue in a republic you need education, argumentation and time. I’d employ the same strategy that is used against gun control.
Can’t we agree that at some point during a pregnancy the baby becomes human? Work back from the point of passage through the birth canal. Is a baby human a minute before? An hour before? A day before? A week? Then a month? How many months?
Women are sensitive about their sex organ and their uniquely feminine issues with it. Stating that rape is “of God” will lose that vote. Placing the emphasis on the baby as a living thing, places the onus on the pro-abortion side. Mourdock and Akin were fools. Had they explained their views logically and thoughtfully they’d have won.
The media is an extension of the progressive movement. But, it can be used to the benefit of conservatives. If they’re not stupid about it. The other problem are voters who take an all or nothing attitude toward politics. The history of politics is incrementalism v. revolution. Revolutions fail nearly always because all human action begins with a thought. The battles are always of ideas - physical weapons cannot defeat an idea. Look at history.
” McC and Boehner are total sell-outs, based on their past behavior.”
Correct, and I expect both will get worse.
I think you stated it very well. I would have written something similar, if I wasn’t using my phone.
But, it isn’t just the people you mentioned. The party is full of activists with the same absolutist attitude, and they prevent any compromise.
In all fairness, there are similar people on the other side, that will accept no compromise, either.
Kinda like Lincoln and Slavery, eh?
Correct me if I am wrong - but wouldn’t this be a Senate rules change - NOT legislation submitted to the House?
I don’t believe anyone can point me to the legislation establishing the filibuster in the Senate - because it isn’t legislation subject to passage by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.
The Constitution provides that...”Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings”.
I understand the skepticism of many here and I do share that, but if Boehner does the right thing, then we need to support him like you said, but we still need to hold his feet to the fire and make sure he goes through with it. Maybe we should all call him and tell time to not cave and make a stand for us.
Dead on arrival?
Yah, right. Boehner the crybaby will fold quicker than a wet single ply of toilet paper, before he would ever stand in the way of the demoRATs or 0dumb0shit! All 0dumb0 has to do is to give Boehner/Boner another free pass to the tanning booth and Boehner will cry and then fold. What an a__hole for a majority leader. Could we swap Nazi Pelosi for Boehner/Boner ?
Yes, that is true.
However, our republic benefits from many checks and balances.
The power of a minority in the Senate was established by Senate rules and can be changed by the Senate whenever it wishes to change its own rules.
The power of the Republican MAJORITY in the House is established by the Constitution. Laws only take effect if both the Senate and the House approve and the bill is then signed by the President.
Boehner is making the statement that the power of the House will be used to maintain the power of the Republican minority in the Senate. Reid can ignore Boehner and proceed with changing the rules in the Senate.
What Reid cannot accomplish is forcing Boehner and the House majority to approve any bill passed by a simple majority in the Senate. Effectively, Boehner can "filibuster" any bill passed in the Senate by not bringing it up for a vote in the House or by having the Republican majority in the House vote against such a bill. The effect is the same; the bill passed in the Senate will fail to become law.
The exception to this power of a majority in the House involves those powers of the Senate which do not require any action by the House, such as the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices and other Presidential appointments or the ratification of Treaties.
I would be happy to see any level of obstruction possible by the House if it insured that the non-liberal majority on the Supreme Court is maintained.
Correct, but the side that can consistently get 51%+ of their agenda passed wins, again and again.
Speaking of the failed history of revolutions: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_EGYPT_CONSTITUTION_GLANCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-11-29-20-23-22
Thank you all very much!!
Woo hoo!! And were now over 98%!! Less than $1.7k to go!! We can do this.
Let's put this baby to bed!!
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Any bill passed via the filibuster rule change will be DOA in the House.
This crap is getting old. Boehner has been a bonehead, but we need to support him when he says the right thing. People here are more interested in being negative than they are in addressing the real problems. The real problems being the WH, Reid, et al.
Because women are emotional not logical.
It has nothing to do with abortion. Ever since women have been given the right to vote, they have looked towards govt as a provider in one way or another.
We had 20 years of pro-life presidents (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) and not one of them denied a woman to an abortion.
“Until the Republicans drop their obsession with abortion, they will lose the vote among women.”
After hearing from so many here that they refused to vote for Romney BECAUSE he supported abortion, I don’t think that will happen.
It’s pretty much what separates us from the leftist freaks.
If married white women were the only ones allowed to vote in the last election, Romney would have kicked Obama ass.
Support the man's actions? What actions? Talk is cheap, and Boehner talks a great talk; it's in the follow-through where he fails. I heard lots of great talk in the debt limit negotiations. All that great talk got us nowhere. That's why you see all this negativity and cynicism on FR.
I'll get excited when I actually see some results.
That's correct. But, that hasn't stopped the left from demagoging every Republican on the threat that they might try. And, it is a factor in every US Senate election, due to their role in Supreme Court confirmations.
All you have to see is what happens when a Republican makes a comment like Akin did. It becomes national news. The state-run media turns it into an issue for every Republican candidate, who is put on the defensive. You aren't going to change that.
Look, I told the original poster that he wouldn't like it. I was wrong about him, but I was right about you.
Until the Republican party accepts the issue as settled and moves on, or forges a compromise with Democrats and finds a middle ground, they will continue to lose national elections -- because it will be resurrected every election as a "war on women" meme.
Of course, there aren't Democrats that will be willing to compromise, either. They have their own activists that would never let them.
My personal opinion about abortion is probably very close to yours. But, I consider economic issues to be far more important, and any chance the Republicans have to win on those issues are negated by their intransigence on abortion (and a couple of other issues).
Without a strong economy, we will go the way of Greece, and France, and the UK: stagnation, and eventually failure. If that occurs, abortion issues will be the least of our worries.