« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Obama Hopes to Change the Filibuster

By: Brian Darling (Diary)  |  October 28th, 2010 at 02:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

President Obama was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last night and attacked the filibuster not once, but twice.  It is funny that the President was one of many liberal Democrat Senators who fought to protect the filibuster in 2005.

The filibuster is contained in the Senate Rules (Rule 22) and merely protects the right of extended debate by Senators before a final vote is scheduled on a matter.  The rule specifies that after 16 Senators sign a cloture petition, a petition to shut off debate, the Senate needs 60 votes to end debate.  The evidence suggests that the left is preparing liberal Senators to push for the elimination of the filibuster in the next Congress if they hold onto a slim majority.  

They despise debate and contrary opinions and hope they can snow the American people by stifling dissent.   The right of extended debate didn’t work out for liberals in the Senate, therefore they will move to abolish the filibuster to make it easier to transform America without the input of the American people.  The President and Jon Stewart had a good laugh at the expense of participatory democracy last night.

As I cited in a blog post on The Foundry a few months ago, Senator Obama used the filibuster to obstruct President Bush’s nominees.

Senator Barack Obama voted on January 30, 2006, to filibuster the nomination of Sam Alito to be a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.  Senator Obama filibustered the nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations … twice.  The President’s words do not match up with his actions as a Senator. 

In April of 2005, Senator Barack Obama spoke on the Senate floor in defense of the filibuster.  He critiqued Republicans who wanted to abolish the filibuster for judges as the practitioners of an “ends justify the means” strategy. 

Last night, the President adopted different talking points.  He used the filibuster as an excuse for his inability to pass legislation “quickly.”  He expressed an intent to “transform” the filibuster process into a simple majority vote.

Look, I would love not to have a 60 vote requirement, which is not in the Constitution, but is in the Senate rules right now that apply to everything we do. 

This President has changed so much since is days in the Senate.

On April 13, 2005, Senator Obama expressed his support for the filibuster.

Everyone in this chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting and the bitterness and the gridlock will only get worse.  Now I understand that Republicans are getting alot of pressure to do this from factions outside of the chamber, but we need to rise above the ends justify the means mentality.

Too bad President Obama no longer agrees with Senator Obama.  Senator Obama also implied that those who did not support the filibuster were not patriotic because the right to “free and open debate” is what our Founders had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.

If the right of free and open debate is taken away from the minority party, then millions of Americans who ask us to be their voice if fear that the already partisan atmosphere in Washington will get be poisoned to the point that we will not be able to agree on anything and doesn’t serve anybody’s best interest and it certainly isn’t what the Patriots who founded this democracy had in mind.

Hypocrisy will not go unnoticed and conservatives need to fight the forces of the left who want to remove the filibuster as a means to the end of a bigger and more powerful government.  The Senator Obama of 2005 would be very disappointed in the strong arm tactics of the President Obama of today.  President Obama is probably already laughing that he sounds like a Republican in 2005 by advocating for an abolition of the one Senate rule that protects extended debate.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • JoeG

    How’s that “gang of 14″ thing working for you now?

  • averagevoterdotcom

    The Senate filibuster dates back to 1837, arguably to 1789. Forget about the strong convictions of the minority, as long as you are in power, right Obama? Our Teen-in-Chief will receive the consequences of his sophomoric recklessness this Tuesday night.

    Vote and contact everyone you know and remind them to make the time to vote Tuesday!

  • NeoKong

    Then we can dare whatever senator who comes up for re-election to defy the voters again.
    Another seven or eight pickups in 2012.
    Also, I think Obama just might have a change of heart if he loses the Senate next week.

    • Deskpilot

      that could be changed. Puppets are heartless objects animated by others. On Obamas’ case, that would be Soros and Stern and everything and everyone that they both represent.

    • audax

      …2012 can’t get here soon enough AND, I CAN STILL SEE NOVEMBER 2, 2010 FROM MY HOUSE!!!1

    • Robert Allen Leeper

      and probably somewhat less important in the longer term. In the short term, we need the filibuster to stop cap-and-trade, which has already passed the House, and to stop any rotten fruits of the lame duck House.

      After that, the F is still important to stop judicial appointments.

      So I don’t agree with “Let them end it”.

      In the longer term, it seems less clear to me. If we are starting with constitutional government, then we want to make it hard to pass new laws. But if we are starting with a vast cancerous tyranny that needs legislative action to repeal and disinfect, then we want to make it easier – provided we have majorities.

      I’m guessing the Rs will gain 8 senate seats in 2010, making the split 51-49 dem+ind – rep. Some (well, Dick Morris) are more optimistic, and I hope they are right. But if not, we’ll need the F til 2013.

      Then we may not need it, because 1) we’ll have the presidency, and 2) a F-proof senate majority in 2013 is possible and maybe more likely than not.
      It just takes a gain of 8 in 2010 plus a gain of 11 in 2012.

      http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/10/14/marginalizing-jim-demint-are-senate-republicans-trying-to-get-tom-coburn-to-be-judas-to-conservatives/#comment-86520

      2012 should be a good year for Republicans as there are 21 Ds, 2 Is and only 10 Rs, including some low hanging D fruit (the Nelsons and Conrad) up for reelection.

      • Brian Darling

        Cap and Tax is the biggest threat in Lame Duck for conservatives. The secondary level of threat are nominations that have stalled, because they have proven to be very controversial. See Craig Becker and Donald Berwick as examples.
        Cap and Taxl is sitting on the Senate Calendar and, if the liberals have the will to rid the rules of the filibuster, they may want to pull the trigger in Lame Duck. Look out, because the chorus on the left against the filibuster is loud. They want to get rid of it, not for the purposes of making the Senate’s rules simple, but merely as a strong arm tactic to get one more Obama promise through the Senate when they have the muscle to do so.
        They abused the Senate rules to pass ObamaCare and will be willing to do anything to pass Cap and Tax before they lose control of the Senate.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
      • reldim

        The Senate does not repass its rules at the beginning of each Congress because it is considered a continuing institution. A rules change in the Senate can never be made by a simple majority. So there will be no change to the filibuster now or at any time in the foreseeable future.

        An attempt to change the Rules is itself subject to filibuster. But a cloture motion on a rules change requires two-thirds of those present and voting, rather than three-fifths of the total number of Senators. So there’s almost no chance that either party will ever have the numbers to force through such a change. Any decision to end or alter the filibuster would be a consensus decision where both parties choose to agree. And I don’t see that happening given the current state of things.

        • Robert Allen Leeper

          The Constitution provides only that “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings” [A1 s5]. It is hard to see why a Senate Resolution that altered the Senate rules, and was passed by a simple majority, should not be effective.

          And I think the idea that one Senate could bind all future Senates [absent a supermajority] is just nuts.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            passed at the beginning of the term lasts until the next term. Doing some research and will return to this matter w/i a few days minimum..

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          you have them, and I’ll do some research as well.

      • Brian Darling

        The sad fact is that if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has the will to do so, he can get a simple majority of his caucus to declare that the filibuster is unconstitutional. This can be done by using a procedural tactic to rid the Senate rules of the filibuster by setting a precedent.
        Here is how it works.
        When the Senate prepares to vote on cloture on Cap and Tax (as an example), then a liberal Senator will stand up and make a constitutional point of order that the filibuster rule is unconstitutional. The chair will allow the Senate to consider the constitutional point of order.
        A simple majority of the Senate will then be empowered to set the precedent that Senate Rule 22, the rule that sets up the procedure for a filbuster, is unconstitutional and it will be effectively whiped of the books of the Senate rules.
        This is patently unfair, because the Constitution empowers the Senate and House to make rules of procedure. There are many supermajority rules in the Senate and House. For example, in the House, one has to suspend the rules by a 2/3rds vote to pass legislation placed on the “Suspension Calendar.” In the Senate there are numerous 60 vote points of order that apply to legislation that violate the budget rules. Also, Senator Jim DeMint has made a practice of offering amendments after a bill is considered and needs to publish the amendments one day before offering them and those amendments are subject to a 2/3rds supermajority.
        Clearly, there is nothing unconstitutional about the filibuster rule, yet the liberals are pushing a theory to terminate the filibuster with a simple majority vote. They are pushing another theory that in a new Congress the Senate only has to have a simple majority to pass rules changes. This is a break from years of Senate precedent and would be a dangrous way to organize the Senate in the next Congress.
        The simple answer is that it is possible to change a precedent of the Senate with a simple majority vote, yet it is not possible to abide by precedent to do so with anything less than a 2/3rds vote of the Senate.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          that would reduce the power of each individual senator exponentially.

  • bobojake
    • Brian Darling

      Let’s make it harder to shut off debate and preserve the opportunity for all Senators to offer amendments. A 67 vote filibuster threshold would force Senators to pass consensus legislation and get away from the hyper-partisanship ushered in by the Obama Administration, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi. Thankfully, it is likely that Reid and Pelosi will not be the Speaker and Majority Leader in the next Congress. We can hope for some change to the climate in Washington, DC so that the parties can sit down and find ways to cut spending, reform the tax code and keep America safe in the next 2 years.

      • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

        True many times the no-action alternative works better. But we’re not going to get “consensus” by requiring 2/3rd – in fact it will be the opposite: the extremists will be in the driver’s seat.

        The problem is that if no elelected adminstration can carry out it’s program, the American people will see this dysfunction and first tune out – and become more susceptible to demagogues who will promise to get something something done by sweeping away the Constution – and we’ll have a Chavez situation. Or Fascist Italy/Nazi Germany – and no this is not Godwin’s Law – I’m referring to the political discontent with an ineffective government that lead to a dictatorship.

        We need to find a different way.

      • Robert Allen Leeper

        Something like that.

      • JSobieski

        Second, expanding the hypermajority requirement to 2/3 is a big mistake.

        Look at California. They have hyper-majority requirements for tax increases, which simply means that budget battles lead to government shutdowns, and the government shutdowns result in liberals winning 90% of the time.

        It takes very capable R politicians to handle a government shut down. Requiring 2/3 is bad in theory and worse in practice.

  • zipbags

    Thats what bothers me with these type of interviews. They act like its a real interview…But, they aren’t journalists and don’t question this kind of major change of position. So the lemmings watching…Say Obama is right and don’t know he is a hypocrit.

    • Spartan4Life

      Hard to believe Obama said Larry Summers had done a “heckuva” job. Even his lefty doctrine politics are getting sloppy.

      • seattlebruce

        The sign of a cornered RAT.

        Also the sign of a megalomaniac when things are working out as you assumed in your delusional thinking.

    • seattlebruce

      “So the lemmings watching?Say Obama is right and don?t know he is a hypocrit.”

      Even CBS news is polling disapproval for bammy at 56% – that’s pretty stark when your liberal outlets have jumped the shark. Mebbe the lemmings are finally being convinced of what we’ve all known for about 4 years. I suppose better late than never, but it sure doesn’t relieve our concerns about the American Idol drone nation. We’ve got our work cut out for us in this nation – to reach the next generation.

    • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth
  • KevinM

    Think Germany, March, 1933

  • seattlebruce

    “It is funny that the President was one of many liberal Democrat Senators who fought to protect the filibuster in 2005.”

    This reminds me of the RATs in MA who voted to remove the power of the governor to seat a Senator immediately, when the governor was a Republican and then voted to re-instate it when Kennedy died, so they could immediately seat another RAT and progress their socialist medical bill.

    It also reminds me of idiot Kerry who said ‘I voted against the bill, before I voted for it…’

    Idiotic statements, and positions like this just remind us of who we’re dealing with in the democRAT party.

    Dude, er Mr. Prez, the arrogance of power is stunning. Can you respect the will of the people and our institutions JUST ONCE?

    Smackdown by the American people in 5 days.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil_truth

    The problem right now is that both sides want to game the system for partisan advantage

    Which is to gain bipartisan agreement on how the rules should be changed – and then pick a future date when neither side can reliably game the system: probably 6 years before it would go into effect.

    And then you’ll have to rely on a Mexican standoff to prevent the one side from unilaterally backing out of agreement – with the voters as the third party.

    Otherwise, we’ll keep seeing the same arguments with different players depending on who holds the majority.

    Of course if one party actually gains the magic 67, then can change the rules unilaterally.. Not sure the last time that’s happened since the Civil War era.

  • victrola

    If our Founding Fathers really wanted 60 votes in the Senate to pass anything of meaning, they would have put that in the Constitution. But they didn’t, they instituted a simple majority vote to pass a bill.

    Obviously, I’m glad we had the filibuster to act as a check against Obama, but it would also be much easier to undo anything he did if we got rid of the filibuster. We could have reformed institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, made the tax cuts permanent, Social Security reform, etc. when Republicans controlled all three branches of government.

    Also, Republicans long term will rule the Senate, there’s really no doubt about that. There are far more conservative small states that will likely have Republicans representing them than there are liberal, Democrat ones. You can already see this transition happening where the only Democrats that are still representing conservative states are old timers, and they’re also getting dumped in record numbers.

    We’re never going to get any serious reform accomplished if we have to have a near-supermajority to get anything passed.

  • uhangtight

    I have to disagree with your last paragraph…

    ” The Senator Obama of 2005 would be very disappointed in the strong arm tactics of the President Obama of today. President Obama is probably already laughing that he sounds like a Republican in 2005 by advocating for an abolition of the one Senate rule that protects extended debate.”

    This is a guy who believes the End Justifies the Means; and, this guy from 2005 was working from that mode of operation as he is today. No, Obama would not be disappointed he would be pleased. He knows where he stood in 2005 and the guy from 2005 would advocate the ridding of the Filibuster if it served his needs at the moment.

    Same guy just different moment and different means to get the same end result.