« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Filibuster Reform – “The Quest for Absolute Power”

By: Brian Darling (Diary)  |  December 17th, 2010 at 05:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Liberals want to do away with the filibuster, in the name of “Filibuster Reform,” so they can have complete control over the Senate agenda in the next Congress.  Before Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took over his position as the most powerful member of the Senate, he was against filibuster reform.  Now he is for it.  The fight for so called Filibuster Reform is merely a “quest for absolute power” by Senator Reid and his liberal allies.

Reid said of the filibuster then – “The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick.  It’s part of the fabric of this institution we call the Senate .. for 200 years we have had the right of extended debate — it’s not some procedural gimmick — some in this chamber want to throw out 214 years of history in the quest for absolute power.”  I strongly associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Nevada then.

Conservatives need to oppose idea of a rules change now that would effectively shut out the voices of individual Senators and shift even more power to Senator Reid.  This will be the first battle of 2011.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • drfredc

    The House also used to have some sort of fillibuster rule. As I recall, it was abandoned sometime in the late 1800s.

    There was grumbling during Bush’s early years that it would be nice to get rid of the Fillibuster to fix social security and a few other things. Didn’t happen… Some recognized how dangerous it would be to eliminate that check and balance… It’s a double edged sword that is likely to quickly come back to bite the party that first wields it. Elections have consequences… So does stupidity…

  • Composer_Man

    I’m actually hoping the Dems are foolish enough to try this. With a Republican House, I’m not as worried now about bad laws going through, and I would so love to see them burned by their own stupidity whenever the GOP takes over the Senate again.

    However, I also feel certain that cooler heads among the Dems will prevail. Particularly the long-serving Senators know that no majority lasts forever.

    • harpu

      Lot’s of dem Senators up for reelection in 2012 should be all the dems need to rethink this filibuster idea…

    • dmccracken

      This would be very dangerous. There are functions of the Senate that have lasting consequences that never hit the House. Things such as advice and consent for treaties and judicial appointments.

      Now we have not seen the Republicans exercising their prerogative to filibuster these ultra-left judges, but with some of the new members, we can hope that this will change. In any case, the House does not provide sufficient protection from the abuse of power that would be posed by a Dem Senate with no filibuster.

  • jmo–sanantonio, tx

    All our work is paying off.

    “”In the 2011 House budget, the groups found that House Democrats requested 18,189 earmarks, which would cost the taxpayers a total of $51.7 billion, while House Republicans requested just 241 earmarks, for a total of $1 billion.”"

    “”The Senate is a different story. But even though some Republicans are still seeking earmarks, Democrats are by far the bigger spenders. The watchdog groups found that Democrats requested 15,133 earmarks for 2011, for a total of $54.9 billion, while Republicans requested 5,352 earmarks, for a total of $22 billion.”"

    Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2010/12/dems-are-earmark-junkies-gop-goes-straight#ixzz18Pl76zlS

  • libertyatstake

    … deliberative body to protect the rights of the minority. Since the 17th Amendment, the filibuster rule is the only thing that protects the integrity of that design. The filibuster rule should be protected.

    http://libertyatstake.blogspot.com/
    “Because the Only Good Progressive is a Failed Progressive”

  • melbedewy

    let the “progressives” be responsible for this power grab. Just like FDR’s attempt to pack the Court it will show them to be grasping swine.

  • JEM

    Man, this would be an idiot time to do it.

    In the next session the Democrats won’t be able to move their bowels without House GOP support, and unless things turn around big-time for the asses 2012 might see a modest GOP majority in the Senate as well.

    So the Dems want to ditch the filibuster, get absolutely no advantage from having done so, then risk handing a filibuster-free Senate to the GOP in 2012?

    Really?

  • BigGator5

    If we are going to fight to keep the filibuster, we should never again talk about ending it ourselves. I, for one, don’t to end up lookling foolish like Harry Reid.

    If we had gone through with our threat of ending the filibuster on confirming Judges, we would not be able to check Obama if he needs to make more appointments to the Supreme Court in his remaining time. We would have been moaning our epic short-sightedness right about now.

    Now I’m not here to be mean. Brian, you might have disagreed with ending the filibuster way back when. I hope you will be the voice of reason if we start down this dark path when Republicans start talking about ending the filibuster again. Remind them, with all due respect, that nothing lasts forever.

    • Brian Darling

      I was against the so called Constitutional Option. I have always been against Filibuster Reform.

    • itrytobenice

      There’s a difference between filibustering nominees and filibustering legislation. Legislation can be modified and compromised. Nominees are either rejected or approved.

      I think that nominees should be brought to a vote. OTOH, I’m not in favor of unilateral disarmament. Since the Ds believe filibustering nominees is fine, and particularly as our fine, upstanding President participated in a filibuster of a SC nominee, I think the Rs should hold them to the same standard now that the shoe is on the other foot.

      We should filibuster BO’s nominees until the Ds agree to end it for all nominees.

      And as much as it irks me when the Ds filibustered our legislation, I still don’t want to see it eliminated as a maneuver, however, I would like to see them go back to actually debating rather than these stupid little soft filibusters where they enter a gentleman’s agreement to not bring something to a vote while other legislation is passed.

      If someone wants to vote not to cut off debate, by golly they ought to be forced to debate it. I’d like to see the Ds defend some of the indefensible crap they support.

  • jeffreywturner

    Are they thinking about passing their extremist agenda in future Congresses after 2012? Either that or they are just thinking about the impending SCOTUS nomination next June when Ginsberg retires. It can’t be any legislative goal for the next Congress, because they aren’t getting any of their radical crap by the House.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    Let them do it. It will come back to haunt them a thousand times over.

  • the_invisible_hand

    And I agree with all the sentiment hoping Republicans aren’t this short-sighted and childish as the Dems when they have the majority.

  • johnt

    It’s enough to make you wonder if there’s anything they really believe in.

  • sneezy720

    Regardless of what your political ideology is, if you truly believe in democracy than you should be against the filibuster. Having a government that is basically non-functional hurts the country. The winning party should be allowed to deliver on what they campaigned for. If it turns out they misread what the voters wanted, there’s always the next election.

    • davesinsanantonio

      First of all, we are NOT a democracy. We are a republic, and with good reason. No democracy has lasted very long, and the Founders knew it. Heck, even Socrates knew it, and his was the first in history.
      Second, having a non-functional government only hurts in time of war. Most non-functioning governments in history were actually non-functional at fixing the screw-ups that government had created in the first place. Government has only a few legitimate functions, all the rest are power grabs. So, having a non-functioning governement in those cases is a blessing to the people.
      The problem with your third statement is that a government can cause so much damage between elections that the succeeding government cannot correct all of them in a timely manner. And, with the current crop their desire is to “fundamentally change America” to the point that it can NEVER recover. That is the danger with them and with those who wish us a democratic form of government. The only people who want to see a democracy in America are those who think they could then use that “popularity” to create an absolute dictatorship and thus be able to get their way forever, which is what Socrates knew would almost always be the case, and which the Founders wisely avoided.

      • dmccracken

        This is also why the constitution originally called for appointment of Senators by the state governments. The founders were not creating a democracy but rather a Republic. They wanted the people to be represented but were very wary of mob rule.

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

      http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2011/01/08/conservatives-should-welcome-end-to-filibusters/

  • gekster

    Then we might not have the unconstitutional and undemocratic HC bill.
    And how much damage has it and will it do before the next election?

  • TrueConservative

    to not have the filibuster when George Bush’s judicial appointees were trying to get through the Senate and the Republicans had a majority.

    The Dems blocked the most qualified of Bush’s minority and women judges from getting on the bench and then they of course claim that Bush is racist because he didn’t put enough minorities and women on the bench. Liberals are so evil.

  • talgus

    of Democrats railing against changing the rules when they were in the minority. All should be used against them. Especially those still with us in the Senate.

  • kenchely

    The filibuster is a safeguard with its roots in the very essence of what the Senate is, in Madison’s words, “a check on the turbulence and follies of democracy.” Every party in history, from the Democratic Republicans and Federalists through the Whigs to today’s Democrats and Republicans, has used it. It is the single greatest force for moderation in our system. If you can’t come to the middle enough to get a solid majority on your side, you’re not going to win.

    But Harry Reid & Co. had better think carefully about what they’re looking for here. Barack Obama will not be president forever; he may not be president in January, 2013. It is extremely likely that the GOP will gain the three seats they need to take over the Senate. Then–what will the judges appointed by President Romney or President Jindal look like? Too bad Robert Bork’s old; it would be true justice to bring him back, but now it’s too late for that. At that point, a GOP president appoints a whole bench full of 40-year-old conservatives that runs the courts for the next 30 years.

    Reid is as short-sighted in his view of the Senate rules as he is in his economics.

  • kenchely

    The filibuster is a safeguard with its roots in the very essence of what the Senate is, in Madison’s words, “a check on the turbulence and follies of democracy.” Every party in history, from the Democratic Republicans and Federalists through the Whigs to today’s Democrats and Republicans, has used it. It is the single greatest force for moderation in our system. If you can’t come to the middle enough to get a solid majority on your side, you’re not going to win.

    But Harry Reid & Co. had better think carefully about what they’re looking for here. Barack Obama will not be president forever; he may not be president in January, 2013. It is extremely likely that the GOP will gain the three seats they need to take over the Senate. Then–what will the judges appointed by President Romney or President Jindal look like? Too bad Robert Bork’s old; it would be true justice to bring him back, but now it’s too late for that. At that point, a GOP president appoints a whole bench full of 40-year-old conservatives that runs the courts for the next 30 years.

    Reid is as short-sighted in his view of the Senate rules as he is in his economics.

  • K.

    It used to be that there had to be continuous debate on a topic to maintain a filibuster. I don’t think the filibuster should be completely eliminated, but what is the sense in allowing a minority to stall a bill if they do not have the passion for extended debate? Large rewards should correspond to large effort.

    Aside from being more fair, this would stand to benefit Republicans just as much as it would Democrats.