« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Will Red State Democrats Abjure Their Principles With the Filibuster?

It’s time for the red state Democrats in the Senate to answer the question Elijah posed to the idol-worshipers: “How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD [be] God, follow him; but if Baal, [then] follow him.”

Senators like Mark Pryor (AR), Mary Landrieu (LA), Heidi Heitkamp (ND), Max Baucus (MT), Joe Manchin (WV), and Tim Johnson (SD) need to decide whether they stand with their constituents or with Obama, the gun-grabbers, the union thugs, and the radical environmentalists.

As early as next Tuesday, Harry Reid is planning to pull the trigger on the nuclear option, which would vitiate the filibuster, prevent rank-and-file members from ever offering amendments, and end the ability of individual members to block conference committees.  He will use an illegal parliamentary maneuver to change the rules of the Senate with just 51 votes.  Upon adoption of the new rules, the Senate will essentially run like the House, with the majority party’s leadership ostensibly controlling the entire agenda.

Yes, it will be the leadership of the Democrat Party that will control the agenda.  So all those red state Democrats who claim to oppose amnesty, gun restrictions, anti-drilling and fracking legislation, cap and trade, and card check will have no power to stop such odious legislation – to the extent they really wish to oppose them.

Harry Reid will have the capacity to immediately proceed to a bill that bans guns without the ability of individual senators to offer amendments.  Joe Manchin can profess to be pro-gun from now until his reelection, but it is unlikely that such legislation will be stopped on the final vote.  The same goes for Bob Casey (and Manchin, of course) with regards to Cap and Trade.  Every liberal coalition group is united behind Harry Reid’s power grab.  They understand that if the rules changes are implemented, they can pass anything.

Most bills that successfully proceed to debate and amendments wind up passing on the final vote.  Yet, even if the filibuster on final passage is preserved (and that will only be temporary), Reid will still have the ability to insert nefarious legislation into a conference committee report on any must-pass bill.  A group of Senate Republicans, led by the inimical John McCain, has already agreed to deny individual members the ability to block conference reports.  Jim DeMint often used this as a tool to thwart any attempt to parachute in bad legislation to conference reports.

So after Obama made himself king of the executive branch, Harry Reid is seeking to make himself king of the Senate.

Over the years, red state Democrats, or any other rank-and-file member, had the power to offer amendments or slow down the process of a bill that was pushed by leadership, but loathed by their constituents.  Senators like Heidi Heitkamp, Mark Pryor, Mary Landreiu, Claire McCaskill, and Joe Manchin need to think long and hard before they hand over the keys of the Senate to Reid, Schumer, Feinstein, and Boxer.

In that sense, this is not really a conservative issue.  Any individual member who is not in leadership will lose his or her ability and power as a senator to stop legislation that is inimical to his/her respective state.  These Democrats would be wise to join with Republicans next week in fighting the rules changes.

If Harry Reid obdurately sticks to his plan to use the nuclear option, Republicans should engage in jujitsu and call up their own rules changes.  What’s good for the goose is goose for the gander, and if Reid believes that only 51 votes are needed to change the Senate rules on the first legislative day, then everything else is fair game.  Conservatives should propose rule changes instituting a ‘point of order’ against any legislation that violates any aspect of the Bill of Rights – with a requirement of 67 votes to strike it down.  This will enable any senator to object to any gun control bill (or any other power grab) and require a 67 vote threshold to advance the bill.

If Harry Reid wants to end the filibuster, he will have to pay the price.  While Republicans only have 45 votes, they would be wise to pressure the self-professed pro-gun Democrats to join in the enactment of these point of orders.

If red state Democrat senators fail to fight against Harry Reid’s power grab, they will reveal themselves to be nothing but conduits for the far-left of their party.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

COMMENTS

  • digitalboss

    I remember when Americans were the better for Congress having done nothing. In fact, Congress was designed by the founding fathers to be able to do nothing by the Senate (that was meant to be representatives of the state governments, not the people) acting as a filter of fever-pitched legislation coming from the House. All of that has been changed by the 17th Amendment and further rules changes. Now, Congress sets up everything so that it requires another action later. So they have to act when no one wants them to act. It is kinda opposite of what is meant to be. And now they want to abolish the last of the tools for doing nothing, the filibuster. Everything that is wrong with this country now, is wrong because the government messed it up. We are all much better when Congress does nothing.

  • jackm

    Didn’t Bill Frist and Dick Cheney say that changing the rules with 51 votes was legal?

  • chriser

    Does anyone really have any illusions at all that these Red state Democrats will end up voting against their leadership? I think they might even secretely love a no-filibuster Senate – that way they have a built-in “we couldn’t do anything about it because of Senate rules” excuse to pitch to their constituents when all this odious legislation passes.

  • gawken

    Wanna bet that Mitch McConnell will announce that if/when the GOP takes the Senate in 2014, he’ll reverse all this. ( Go ahead, think about it..)

  • jackm

    But you acknowledge that what is and is not legal with 51 votes is the same today as in 2003, right? (I had forgotten the year.)

  • rbdwiggins

    No. They did not seek, nor did they attempt, to change Senate Rule XXII or how the Senate conducts the Legislative Calendar.

    The Senate Democrats systematically blocked the Judiciary Committee and the entire body from addressing the Executive Calendar to the point that it caused a crisis in the federal Judiciary. Absent a ruling from the Senate Parliamentarian, Frist contemplated allowing a majority vote on the constitutionality of the Democrat’s tactic. Hence, the name: Constitutional Option.

  • celador2

    IMO Reid and pro gun Ds will orchestrate how they vote and what they say if anything so as not to implicate pro gun Ds with helpig anti Second foes like Boxer, Shumer and Feinstein. Appearances are everything Harry himself is one of these back stabbin’ “proud members NRA’ types.

    Manchin WV just won six years but Pyror Arkansas and Landrieu Louisiana are vulnerable in 2014 as their states have become more Republican than six years ago. For that matter Levin in Michigan , Harkin in Iowa even Lautenberg NJ have to watch it for 2014. Tim Johnson knows how to survive and will not slip imo.

    Keep in mind voters, judge the pro gun Ds by the compnay they keep.

  • celador2

    So?
    Jack, have you a comparison point for today’s stand off on filibuster rule changes?

  • celador2

    Only if the Ds show any support for their party and their president’s anti Second positions are they in trouble of a landslide removing them.

    However, they live in states more Republican than six years ago and need be very cautious with skeptical voters. I mean, if a Senator really believes in protecting the Second how can one be in party with Obama and Biden and Cuomo..

    Were Mary Landrieu anyone but her I’d say she is finished as LA Senator.

    Creative campaign ads might swing a few minds GOP 2014. The Republican party always defends the Second.

  • celador2

    Out with him as leader after 2014.

  • jackm

    So, Frist and Cheney were not seeking a change in the rule. They were merely going to ignore it. I remind you that the rule you cite says that ending debate requires 60 votes.

  • conservitas

    McConnell is really behind all of this — the “fillibuster reform” puts what he sees as rogue senators (Rand Paul) in a box, while 40 Senators together can still easily block legislation.

  • jackm

    This is my view: The rules of the Senate used to work because both sides acted like gentlemen and respected the right of the minority to have their say on the one hand and the understanding that the Senate was primarily a majoritarian body on the other. All that is gone now. What we have now is the equivalent of one member beating another senseless with a cane.

  • AceInTX

    PPPPPPFFFFTTTTTTTTTT

  • commonsenseobserver

    “Democrats” and “principles” should never be in the same line.

  • commonsenseobserver

    As far as I’m concerned, they never actually proved it.

  • checkmate2012

    digitalboss, I couldn’t agree with you more! I called it the abyss or the rabbit hole, take your pick. Can we admit our Congresscritters to insane asylums? Just asking…

  • rbdwiggins

    Your attempt to deceive and conflate the Legislative Calendar with the Executive Calendar, and your ability to view the Left’s desire to enact a highly destructive legislative agenda and the Right’s desire to resolve a constitutional crisis within the Federal Judiciary as morally relative, is very informative. Note: To date, the constitutional crisis within the Federal Judiciary remains unresolved.

  • celador2

    dan, this is a good thred as as it shows us how to play chess.

  • njshibaowner

    No more amendments? AWESOME. Every vote should be on the subject of the bill. No more sneaking in projects for Alaska fisheries into relief for victims of Superstorm Sandy! Let’s have true transparency in what our government is doing and what it is voting on!

  • jackm

    Facts don’t lie. Everything I have said can be verified by a 1000 sources. Note that I have no need to call anyone names to make my point. Do not let emotion overrule reason.

  • rbdwiggins

    What part of Senate Rule XXII did I quote? To the extent that it was mentioned was to clarify that Senate Republicans did not attempt to change the rule. They did however, question the constitutionality of a Democrat tactic, i.e., Borking, that caused actual harm to a co-equal branch of the federal government, i.e., the Federal Judiciary. You have refused to address that point.

    Query: What purpose are you serving by posting here? Are you here to promote and advance conservative principles within the Republican Party, or are you here with purely deceptive and/or malicious intent?

    Addendum: In re: celador2, You can trace it back to 1987 and hold the late-Senator Ted Kennedy responsible for the complete breakdown and absence of civil discourse in the US Senate.

  • checkmate2012

    “Upon adoption of the new rules, the Senate will essentially run like the House, with the majority party’s leadership ostensibly controlling the entire agenda.”
    .
    I don’t see the need for this since Reid already controls the agenda by not bringing bills to the floor for a vote. If this gets passed, R senators shouldn’t show up for work and might as well spend the next 4 years holding town halls in all 50 states, who cares if it’s their own, and let Reid own the mess. He’s a mean old man so let him hold court over an empty chamber and wither in his ways.