« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Senate Democrats Poised for Power Grab

By: Brian Darling (Diary)  |  December 23rd, 2010 at 07:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Senate Democrats are going to be working over the Christmas break to deliver a lump of coal to the American people in the form of a radical changing of the Senate’s rules.  This is a naked power grab by liberals in the Senate pure and simple. 

The National Journal reports that Senate Democrats are laying the groundwork to chip away at the filibuster on January 5, 2011.  They are going to push the idea that a simple majority of the Senate can abolish the filibuster rules, or radically change the rules, in a new Congress. 

All Democratic senators returning next year have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urging him to consider action to change long-sacrosanct filibuster rules.  The letter, delivered this week, expresses general frustration with what Democrats consider unprecedented obstruction and asks Reid to take steps to end those abuses. While it does not urge a specific solution, Democrats said it demonstrates increased backing in the majority for a proposal, championed by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and others, to weaken the minority’s ability to tie the Senate calendar into parliamentary knots.

They are angry that they could not railroad through the Senate legislation imposing Card Check, a Public Option for ObamaCare and Climate Change.  Now it is pay back time. 

These liberals intend on making it harder for Republicans to participate in the legislative process. They are also setting the table to make it easier to sieze control of the Supreme Court if any of the conservative leaning members decide to retire. 

Republicans would be smart to fire back with a proposed rule to abolish the Senate Majority Leader’s power to block amendments to bills, create at 2/3rds supermajority before 2nd Amendment rights can be infringed and a 2/3rds supermajority before increasing the debt limit.  If Democrats want to change the rules with a simple majority, conservatives have the power to fire back with a series of new Senate rules to make it harder for liberals to expand government.  It is clear that many liberals have not gamed out the consequences of this radical idea.

Liberals are going to destroy the tradition of extended debate and a free amendment process in the Senate if they can pull off this procedural coup.  They want to set a precedent that the Senate can toss aside the rules with a simple majority vote.  Liberals will regret this power grab if Republicans take over the Senate and Presidency in 2013, yet they seem so intent on short term gain that they don’t care about the long term consequences for members of the minority party.

Ironically, it is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who has caused the unprecendented number of Senate filibusters with his strong arm tactics.  Bill Wichterman, former high ranking Senate Republican leadership staffer and expert in the Senate’s rules, wrote over at at National Review Online in a piece titled “Blame Ried, Not Republicans, for ‘Obstructionism‘” that Reid is to blame for the large numbers of filibusters over the past two years.

We’ve all heard the complaint: Republicans are the “Party of No.” But the GOP’s historic number of filibusters is the only viable response to Sen. Harry Reid’s unprecedentedly authoritarian rule of the Senate. Senator Reid has blocked the minority from amending bills more than any Senate majority leader in history — and more times than the last four Senate majority leaders combined.

Wichterman explains the way Senator Reid has abused his authority as Majority Leader to stifle the free amendment process in the Senate.  Republicans responded with filibusters.

How does Senator Reid do this? He uses his right to be recognized first by the chair to offer just enough amendments to bills to block any further amendments. These amendments are usually meaningless, like changing a word or a date, but they effectively block the minority’s opportunity. This is a clear abuse of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Senate’s rules, and that is one reason why we have witnessed Republicans’ frequent use of the filibuster.

Retiring Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) agrees with Wichterman and lashed out (as reported in The Hill) at the this practice in his farewell speech.

In his final floor speech, Specter criticized Reid and other recent majority leaders for the “tyrannical” practice of routinely refusing to let senators offer amendments on the legislation.

Wichterman argues that Reid could solve this problem, not with a rules change, but with him allowing more debate and an open amendment process.

If Senator Reid wants to pass legislation, he can changes his ways and let the Senate be the Senate, providing an open and fair debate. Or he can stay the course, refusing to let the minority have a voice, and see gridlock ensue. The choice is Reid’s.

It looks like Reid has chosen a different route.  Democrats are working like devious Grinches this Christmas to build a mechanism to take away the rights of Senators to participate in the legislative process.  Consider this gift a big fat lump of coal to incoming Senators and the American people. 

Merry Christmas Red Staters – get some rest for the next hill to fight on — defending the filibuster.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • zornorph

    Let ‘em do it. Without the house, there is a big limit to what they will be able to pull. And the GOP is very likely to take the Senate in 2012 and the Dems will then not be able to stop the GOP from doing real good things.

    • ncdaddy

      I agree. Filibusters stink. Whoever is voted into power, by the will of the people, should have the ability to promote the agenda without gridlock. At least the voters will get what they bargained for, and the problems, if any, are fixable every other November.

      • jakota

        Some of these bills (see healthcare) are so convoluted it will take years to undo the damage, if it can be done at all.

        Leave it the way it is. Reid should have been voted out – but Nevadans seem to have lost their way.

        • cycllyn

          I agree, we should leave things as they are. It may be true, that in two years the Republicans get control of the Senate and start the change towards the good. The problem is, in two years, with kind of power, it may be too late. They would easily pass liberal court appointments, rubber stamp any foreign treaty negotiated by the White House, and allow government agencies to make such power grabs, that we may forever be digging ourselves out.

    • writeblock

      except for court nominees. But this could help us down the line.

      • Locke
    • mikerazar

      I cannot foresee even a single bill passed or passable by the House that will spark a filibuster in the Senate by the GOP.

      The Dems are apparently too stupid to understand this application of second grade math. In 2013, when they really could use the filibuster themselves, it won’t be there for them.

      It is fortunate for the Republic that the party of traitors to the their oath of office is also the party of dummies.

      • K.

        They are not trying to actually eliminate the filibuster or change the 60 vote rule. One of the biggest changes is to simply require senators to be on the Senate floor when conducting one, as used to be true before Democrats changed the rules in the 1970s.

        See below replies for details.

    • astrolite

      The amount of damage that the democrats have already done and can yet do in the remaining two years will finally be irreversable! We can’t wait until 2012. Look what they did in the first two years, probably assured the destruction of our country. Remember the senate can ratify treaties and confirm supreme court nominees without the house having any say! We MUST NOT give them total control of the senate now.

      • realvoice2010

        Do not give up the filibuster. Fight for keeping it. If the Dems think they need it, don’t let them have it.
        The name “Democratic party” is such an oxymoron, and many of them are lock step anti-anything good for this country. We cant’ let this moronic and essentially corrupt senate to continue with any power.

      • thecommander

        Two years is a long time and the damage the liberall socialist Democrats can do can not be imagined. We cannot let this happen. These people have already shown they do not care about our nation and are determined to destroy us by destroying the foundations our nation was built upon. Gone are our Christian heritage and our morals are sliding. These people were sworn to uphold our Constitutional heritage but look what they gave us.

        The Democrats had better wake up and realize that we are not a people who will tolerate a dictatorship. Obama and his allies had better realize that unlike some third world countries they will not have the backing of the military.

  • renny

    for if they can change the rules at a whim, when the Reps. are a majority, the same applies. But liberals never have had any memories or they would remember the USSR collapsed and command and control economies are always unresponsive and depressed.

  • 1689

    As I understand it, unlimited debate, and cloture votes to cut off debate, have been in place since the beginning, since the Senate first met right after the first elections, after the Constitution was adopted in 1787. If the Senate takes steps to eliminate it, overthrowing 223 years of history, it can only mean they want tyranny — tyranny of the majority, tyranny by the executive, power at all costs. They have no shame, no restraint, not a care for history or tradition. (Their only restraint might be, do the lawyers tell me I can make a decent argument that it’s legal).

    Well, if that’s what they want, it’s World War III for the Republicans. Wait, it’s an open question whether Republicans have any spine. It’s World War II for tea partiers, who we know will stand up & get ready to fight in the Senate, in the State Legislatures, a Constitutional Convention. And when the tea partiers fully come to power, they’ll make sure this can never happen again, by as many Constitutional amendments as it takes or, short of that, by sticking the Democrats with the same rule changes meted out to Republicans. Otherwise, these creeps are going to roll you and the public again and again until the logical consequences of their actions are completely played out.

    • writeblock

      would take care of this, giving the states veto power over federal legislation. It’s long overdue.

      • writeblock

        there’s a reaction. There’s already an amendment movement. Action by Senate Democrats to eliminate the filibuster will only fuel resistance and bring about what they most fear. In a way, Let them try. Americans would not sit back and let this happen without striking back–as they did in November. The Democrats seem to have a death wish.

      • realvoice2010

        I agree that the states should have the veto power over federal legislation. After all what is “federal”. They have worthless and dangerous ideas that they want us all to follow. Remember they can’t run anything properly, except to grab as much power for themselves as possible. If we live in a blue state that constantly agrees with the federal govt, then let us get the hell out of these states and let them fade into oblivion.

    • ohiohistorian

      This is a perfect example. Remember 2000, with a 50/50 Senate, and how Republicans agreed to power sharing. Then, when the Dems lost in 2002 and 2004, the Republicans then agreed with allowing minority rights. Since 2006, Harry has been a real snot. He should be shunned by any real Mormon over his inhuman behavior in politics.

      • realvoice2010

        It must be frustrating to be an historian or to teach it (properly). I admire those who know our american history, even the lousy parts like the takeover of our government and schools by communist radicals. We have to know how it was done and why. We also need to learn from it despite Hegel’s observation. We need tactics and strategy to counter the counterculture and eventually eliminate them politically for at least another half-century. Well, I can dream can’t I. The reality is that there will be wins and losses for us like in football, except we need to give them such a devastating loss that they are weakened beyond belief. (You know what, I think we’ve really started that this past Nov. 2nd-haven;t we),

    • holliday

      There isn’t a proposal to change the 60 vote cloture rule – http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/Senate%20Procedures%20Reform%20Memo.pdf has an overview of proposed changes. Basically, Merkley is proposing that the ability to filibuster the _opening_ of debate be removed, and that to actually filibuster you have to actually be on the Senate floor, so that there is some cost to filibustering.

      With these changes a group of Senators could still filibuster a bill, but it would be harder to use the threat of a filibuster to delay legislation. Whatever party you’re in, these actually look like sensible changes. Removing the 60 vote limit would, however, be a very bad thing were that to be considered as it eliminates the ability of the minority to have a voice in the Senate.

      • carolina

        That is not as bad as it sounded. However, I still think they should go back to the original 2/3 vote limit.

        • Locke

          But is this what the Dems are now proposing?

          At any rate I think any violation of the existing rules, including specifically an attempted amendment without the prescribed majority is unconstitutional and should be opposed tooth and nail.

          • davesinsanantonio

            that the Dems are good at saying what is in a bill, but actually putting something else in. They could do the same thing with their “rules”. So, Reps had better learn to carefully read anything the Dems propose instead of taking their word for it.

      • Brian Darling

        The proposal by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) would set up the first cloture vote at 60, then it would lower by 3 for every subsequent vote. 2nd vote would be 57 — 3rd vote 54 — 4th vote 51.

        • holliday

          From what I’ve read, while there have been some individuals who have suggested changing the 60 vote limit, the proposals that have support do not change that option. Tom Udall and Jeff Merkley have both proposed eliminating secret holds, changing the cloture rule from 60 votes to invoke cloture to 40 votes to continue debate (forcing those filibustering to be present), eliminating the ability to filibuster the opening of debate, and forcing those filibustering to actually be on the Senate floor.

          Most Democrats seem to be aware that they will be in the minority again at some point, so the changes being proposed seem mainly to be based on frustration with what many of them saw as obstruction, and a desire to return to a more “normal” working environment for the Senate.

          • K.

            What is one of the most important changes, namely requiring senators to actually be on the Senate floor, is only a restoration to similar rules that were changed during the 1970s by the Democrats. Before that time a filibuster required continuous debate and once no one wanted to talk anymore it would end. I think this is a good feature.

          • Brian Darling

            Merkley and Udall of New Mexico are wrong in advocating a changing of the rules without 67 votes. They want to use a strong arm tactic to change all the Senate’s rules with merely 50 votes. That is the big problem. If you accept the idea that the Senate’s rules can be tossed aside with a simple majority vote, then there is no way to stop leadership from creating new rules for the consideration of every bill.
            If you like the way the House is run, then you should feel comfortable with the traditions in the Senate being tossed aside.
            Eliminating “Secret Holds” will greatly empower leadership, because it is a solution in search of a problem. A “hold” is one member saying they intend on filibustering a bill or nomination. The notify leadership and leadership objects on the member’s behalf. Leadership of both parties could stop objecting on behalf of members and then the secret hold would be gone.
            Getting rid of the filibuster for motions to proceed to bills and the appointment of conferees will further empower leadership to steam roll individual members. The 40 vote to filibuster idea is terrible, because it would shorten the time period for a vote from 2 days to none (if I understand that idea correctly).
            If Democrats want a normal working environment, then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should stop blocking the offering of amendments. He engages in a strong arm tactic known as “Filling the Tree.” Once Reid tosses aside that tyrannical procedural tactic, then we shall see less filibustering. The rules changes proposed by Merkley and Udall are way over the line and will chip away at the traditions of extended debate in the Senate.

          • froster

            If a bill is really bad and the lawmaker has a reason for doing it, they should be able to say, yes, I am holding this bill up. (like Tom Coburn does)

            Otherwise, I agree with you.

  • http://mrnewyorkcity.blogspot.com lifeofthemind

    Most Democrats up for reelection in 2012 might consider this the end of their political career. The biggest surprise is that Manchin let himself get roped into this. Right now it looks to me like the GOP has 2 vulnerable seats coming up and the Donks have 8-10.

    This does matter because of the appointments power of the Senate. All that the House could do if there really was an existential crisis of tyranny, in the strict sense of an arbitrary government at variance with traditional constitutional principles, from the Executive in collusion with the Senate Majority Leader is simply refuse to fund said positions or the enforcement of any such laws or treaties based on such a procedure. This would produce a crisis unprecedented in American history.

    • writeblock

      as long as the next presidential election. That’s coming up. I’m not really concerned. I care about the courts–but there are other ways to slow down the confirmation process. But it’s absolutely essential we win big in 2012. Obama isn’t as weak as some think. He’s had some wins lately and he’s gotten a blip in the polls. He’s got a built-in advantage with minorities and in the blue states where they’re concentrated. It’s going to be a tough brawl and we need to clean up our own house. The RNC fell down on the job in 2010 and we lost in places we shouldn’t have due to a lousy ground strategy. We should begin by getting rid of Steele. We just can’t afford someone that ineffectual.

      • ohiohistorian

        I keep hearing about “getting rid of Steele”. While he has not performed solidly, he has done some decent things.

        Who is this wonder person with whom you will replace Steele? I have heard names that are unknown to me. Can a never-was lead a bunch of has-beens to a successful election? I doubt it.

        Let’s have a solid candidate before we throw Steele under the bus.

        • writeblock

          We can’t afford to lose the next election because he can’t perform. If we don’t have the muscle to replace a chairman, how the hell do we expect to win? Is the GOP that pathetic? He’s a proven loser. He’s widely disliked, not only by the leadership, but by the rank and file. We need to get rid of him. That should be the first order of business in 2011.

          • cwilson

            because nobody would take anything he says seriously. Steele’s gaffes have been very damaging…and he shows no sign or ability for introspection and improvement.

  • http://www.AmericanThinker.com Hammer2008

    Brian,

    Your proposed counter offer sounds good, but we’re dealing with minority leader Mitch McConnell. Money says he rolls over on this too, along with the other squishy republicans. Ironically, the late Sen. Byrd is probably rolling over in his grave at this notion.

    “Republicans would be smart to fire back with a proposed rule to abolish the Senate Majority Leader?s power to block amendments to bills, create at 2/3rds supermajority before 2nd Amendment rights can be infringed and a 2/3rds supermajority before increasing the debt limit.”

    • carolina

      I think we should go back to the original rules in order to ‘protect’ “the greatest deliberative body” in the world. A slower Senate PROTECTS us from hasty ram jobs of legislation that is not right, or acceptable, to the American people. The dems had ‘enough rope to hang themselves’ – and so they DID – by forcing through obamacare.
      The dems are going to pay a heavy price for this for a LONG time.

  • jeffreywturner

    The radical crap isn’t getting passed in the House, and treaties require 2/3 anyway.

    The only thing this will help Dems with in the new Congress is nominations, and to tell you the truth, I don’t think the Republicans have the cajones to filibuster a SCOTUS nominee anyway (which is the really meaningful one), so I don’t think this will change much for the new Congress.

    I mean, its a given than when Ginsburg retires next June Obama will name another left-wing activist to replace her. Now, there will be 47 members of the GOP Senate Caucus next year. Perhaps 41 of them would have had the cajones to join in a filibuster to block that, but I highly doubt it.

    • writeblock

      Brown’s up in 2012 so he’ll remain a problem. So will Kirk, Snowe and Collins. But Voinovich, Bennett and Gregg are gone and the other weak links are wary of being primaried. The new caucus would definitely stand up to block confirmations they deemed radical imo.

      • jeffreywturner

        Add to the 4 you listed – Murkowski and Graham, that puts you at 6 Republicans who probably won’t participate in a filibuster of a judicial nominee. That means the Dems only need one other to break us. You honestly think EVERY single other Republican will hold strong? Burr? McCain? The new lady from NH? I doubt it.

        • carolina

          had a “come to Jesus meeting with the TEA party folks in SC (a good friend of mine was there). I don’t think Graham is a RINO worry. He knows his very survival depends on it……..

          • jeffreywturner

            Perhaps you are right, but I am just tired of all his crap.

            SC is a red enough state that we should be able to have two reliably conservative Senators like DeMint.

          • powertothepeople

            I wish I could have your enthusiasm. We have not been able to get rid of him the last two elections when we had a decent contender and some of his acts fresh on the minds of voters. I do not see that changing the next time around as he is deeply entrenched and has a very strong base.

            But one can hope right?

          • carolina

            I really think the TEA party folks got his attention. Whether or not they will find a strong candidate to take him on remains to be seen. If he is reelected he could turn out to be another Murkowski. UGH
            Maybe Graham will learn somethng from Rubio and Paul. We can hope.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            The lessons they learned are thus…

            • When you run as an “Entitlement Candidate” you get beat.
            • When you take all primary opposition seriously you win big.

            Examples abound. For starters, Martha Coakley went on vacation just before the election. She couldn’t possibly lose. To a Republican. In Massachusetts. Oops.

            Mike Castle lost in Delaware because he didn’t show up. He assumed he’d win. He didn’t.

            Lisa Murkowski was a no-show in AK and Miller came out of no-where to win.

            Realize that Castle arguably would have won DE in a walk because without the CO’D factor the race would have gotten no national publicity and Castle is well known statewide and liked. At least in DE. Murkowski would have buried whoever the Dem was if she’d won the primary and she wouldn’t have ever had to show up. Bottom line, these folks could have spent every crying dime on the primary because they would have won the general going away.

            Pretty much the same might be said for Crist in Florida. Rubio was barely a spot in the polls and Crist made the mistake of not only ignoring him, but making fun of him when he did talk about him. Crist had more money than god to win that election and he gave it away. Note: Rubio was an excellent candidate. So was Murkowski (at least for AK).

            On the other side of the coin you’ve got John McCain who faced JD Hayworth, a well known and roundly disliked buffoon. McCain spent about $20MM beating Hayworth – he could have beaten him if he’d spent $2MM, but he had the money and he only needed to spend about $400K to win the general against a no-name Democrat.

            Don’t think for a second that lesson will be lost on Lugar, Graham, etal. None of them will have credible competition in the general election.

            If we don’t do an excellent job of recruiting and setting up an organization well in advance, these folks will be in the Senate long after I’m dead and gone.

          • jeffreywturner

            I didn’t find Graham’s primary challengers to be credible. I am talking about a primary challenge from a sitting Congressman or former governor. A real household name – that is what it will take to bring Graham down in a primary. Either that or a “Larry Craig” incident that goes public.

            Perhaps by 2014, there will be at least one Republican like that in SC who will be willing to take Graham out.

          • powertothepeople

            so who do you suggest? Who is ready to take him on? I know it is easy to say the Tea party will move in or someone with a household name will run against him, but that still is easier said than done and even if you are right it still does not mean he will be beat.

            He is deeply entrenched and much of the area he represents still gives him favorable ratings. He was not beaten when people were tired of his mess and it was fresh on their minds, I do not see it being much different in the next election.

            But like I said above, one can hope.

          • jeffreywturner

            and then decides that replacing Graham in the Senate will help the state more than a second term as Governor – perhaps she could unseat him.

            Am I grasping for straws? Yes. But that is the kind of thing that needs to happen in order to oust someone like Graham in a primary.

          • powertothepeople

            and it should not happen. We need her right where she is, not up on the hill.

            Listen I share your opinion on Graham and the need to fire him, but I am a realist. Unless a miracle happens and it could, Graham is in that seat for as long as he wants it. The upstate tea party is just about the weakest branch in the country, has little pull in the state, and has few active members. Their motion, while nice, carries little weight in the areas that vote for Graham. Then you have the issues with the majority of towns in his district being of a make up of a large, very large majority of older folks who tend to simply vote for the guy they know. This is not true for them all, but Graham has kept the older vote at almost 3 to 1 even with all the crap he pulled. Then you have the counties that were strong dem until the 90′s who now vote republican, but not super conservative. Some of these are Laurens, McCormick, Pickens, Abbeyville. They love Graham in those towns so much that he took almost 90% in one of them in the last election which was an election we thought he might have been fired or at least been in some trouble.

            I want the guy gone even if he was to turn 100% fiscal and socially conservative and quit with his pandering to the other side because his past says he can not be trusted. But reality says it would take a very special and very popular person, along the lines of Carrol Campbell (dead) to beat him and there are none of those gearing up to run against him. Haley, if running against him, may be able to beat him, but she was not real strong in the 3rd during the primaries. But she is not and better not be leaving the office of governor as she needs to fix that system and it will take two terms to put a dent in it.

          • jeffreywturner

            So I guess we shall have to hope for him to have a Larry Craig type of incident.

            I am joking of course. Lindsey should be able to come out of the closet in his own time and under his own terms.

    • ohiohistorian

      The bulk of the cases get decided at much lower levels. EVERY judicial nominee counts. Watch him try to pack the court nominees in mid-2012 and then have the media call Republicans names because they are blocking the will of the President (who finally did his appointment job in the last three months of his term). This is what happened with Clinton.

      • writeblock

        but it’s the most critical. Sure the lower courts are a problem. But the major cases reach the top–those that can change the Republic in dangerous ways.

      • jeffreywturner

        But I mean, c’mon – no matter what the lower courts say on Obamacare, SSM, Abortion, etc., the real seminal issues like this are going to end up getting decided by the SCOTUS anyway. The SCOTUS functions like God. No one can tell them they are wrong and they answer to no one. Even if you amend the Constitution to counteract one of their decisions – guess who interprets the amendment? Them again! It is ridiculous I know, but that is the sad fact we face.

        • Brian Darling

          The elimination of the filibuster for nominations would be terrible for conservatives. It would allow President Obama to nominate far leftists to the courts. If you think Sotomayor and Kagan were bad, imagine living in a world without the filibuster. We would have pulled even more radical noms.

          • cwilson

            1) Name one time Republicans EVER filibustered ANY nomination (Abe Fortas doesn’t count, since it was bipartisan).
            2) Describe, in detail, why you think Republicans ever WOULD filibuster any nomination. (Extra credit: give directions to the hidden location where McConnell’s balls are stored)

          • jeffreywturner

            He did not have majority support for confirmation anyway, so he would have been rejected if a vote had been allowed.

            The filibuster was not to block him – it was to spare the LBJ the embarrassment of having his nominee rejected.

            Dems were screaming the name Abe Fortas in 2005 in order to make the disingenuous argument that their judicial filibusters were not unprecedented. It was of course BS though, because our point was that no judicial nominee WITH MAJORITY SUPPORT had ever been filibustered.

          • jeffreywturner

            If Kagan wasn’t radical enough for Republicans to filibuster, it is safe to assume that Republicans simply will never filibuster a nominee.

            Now, given that Republicans will never filibuster a nominee, it is to our benefit that nominees simply can not be filibustered, because at least that way we will be able to confirm ours with 50 votes (+ the VP) just as the Dems already can.

        • Menlo

          The court only functions as God because the other two branches of government (and probably those who elected them) have chosen to let them.

          If elected officials stopped answering to the judiciary, then the judiciary would answer to them. You’ll never see that from elected Republicans though.

  • earlgrey

    nt.

    • Brian Darling

      More negotiating authority in conferences and will give them the power to confirm even the most left wing nominees to the Courts.

      • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

        It ultimately is about power and running over the opposition. That’s all it is about.

        • Brian Darling

          Were stopped by filibuster. Probably Cap and Trade.

  • clement

    Although a simple majority would be nice to tear down all these progressive social programs….knowing democrats after a 2012 romping they would try and re-enact this in the lame duck. (Kind of like what they did with special elections in MA). They want to bend the rules to their favor and push back when it is not. Knowing republicans, they would never do this themselves.

    Best to just shut it down.

    • walter_hanson

      Assuming that a Republican in 2012 wins the reenactment won’t work. The Republican has to hold a press conference and say this is a bad bill and shouldn’t be passed. I have this idea which we should adopt instead. 47 Republicans including a couple in 2014 that will have to face the voters Graham in particular won’t roll.

      Not to mention we had just 42 votes in the chamber when the rolling occurred. It took two votes usually Snow and Mirkuaski. Harry will have to do a lot of sales manship.

      Then throw in one other factor. Over 20 Democrats have to run for reelection in 2012. Every one of them should be harrassed about putting things off to hide their views from the voters.

      If I was a smart Democrat even in a state which I thought will be safe (did anybody count on winning an Illnois or a MA with a moderate republican) I wouldn’t want to give a Republican an issue this big.

      Walter Hanson
      Minneapolis, MN

  • tomarmstrong

    Not many political parties take the opportunity to so thoroughly damage their own interests. Do they think they’re going to get anything over from the Republican-run House that they would want to ram through? But come 2012, they’ll be wishing they had the tools to stop the Republicans from Steamrolling them… I can hear the screaming now about the “tryanny of the majority”…

  • chamberD

    You mean they expected the opposition to roll over and play dead?

    Or is it more like, they’re angry because while they’re raping us we say NO?

    We’re just this side of the fur-flying stage. If these liberal and leftist commies don’t take a powder, and soon, they’ll be sentenced to rocking chairs for the rest of their days, with periodic visits to the pillory stocks.

    These idiots are the greatest, really the greatest, advertisers for the return of conservatism — limited government — we could have hoped for. Only thing is, because they were so stupid as to show the real color of their ugly despotic faces, the backlash against them will be . . . let’s say, unpleasant for them. Career-wise, at the very least.

    • earlgrey

      if they can’t contribute to the bill writing process, debate and have no say in votes. Great gig, minority party Senator.

      At least this will give Republican a reason to fight. Rush has maintained that some on the R side don’t really want to lead, and our content to be in the minority, because it is obviously very powerful to be a Senatro. By the time Reid and the democrats will be done, they will have no power and being a Senator will be meaningless.

  • E Pluribus Unum

    nt

  • libertyatstake

    … DADT and Food Nanny specifically to avoid this? Make a deal with the devil ….

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

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

    Stack the courts with radical leftists, four solid leftist SCOTUS judges (and a 5th if one of the conservatives can no longer serve) and then rely on the courts to strike down any Republican initiatives if they take over in 2013. Not to mention stacking the Federal agencies with appointments who cannot be tossed out.

    It’s insurance so that if the leftists manage to lose in 2012, they have insurance in place to lock in their gains until their turn comes around again.

    • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

      do we start ignoring the SCOTUS? If they become increasingly Leftist and obviously unconstitutional in their decisions how long are we obligated to simply roll over? Imagine a SCOTUS of 9 Elena Kagans. Do we really simply submit to their decrees on what is and is not Constitutional simply because they are SC Justices? I say NO.

      • jeffreywturner

        I don’t think there is really an alternative.

        Some would suggest we could amend the Constitution in order to limit the SCOTUS’s power, but just remember then that the SCOTUS would be able to “interpret” that amendment just like they “interpret” everything else.

        And of course, by “interpret”, I mean “rule that it means whatever they WANT it to mean instead of what it ACTUALLY means”.

  • BigGator5

    Republicans would be smart to fire back with a proposed rule to abolish the Senate Majority Leader?s power to block amendments to bills, create at 2/3rds supermajority before 2nd Amendment rights can be infringed and a 2/3rds supermajority before increasing the debt limit.

    I like that, I like it a lot!

  • earlgrey

    who is that in Barack Obama’s old seat?

    I may be overthinking but that would be devastating for Red State Democrats. Whatever veil they had over what their true intentions are for this country woudl be lifted. The democratic party would be defined by the Left and Right coasts and most Red States don’t like them. You could see democrats in these states leave the party in droves.

  • marshmom

    “Liberals will regret this power grab if Republicans take over the Senate and Presidency in 2013, yet they seem so intent on short term gain that they don?t care about the long term consequences for members of the minority party.”
    ______________________________________________________

    Actually, I think they plan on doing this so that the America we all know and love won’t exist anymore by 2013. If they can build a structure and put in place the rules they want NOW, then all they need is a “crisis” and they can clamp down with their rules and their regulations and our whole constitution is out the door anyway.

    • Ausonius

      Adding $2,000,000,000,000 (that’s how you write a trillion, folks!) in debt in less than 2 years, with the intention of adding just as much if not more debt in the same time period, will deliberately bankrupt us.

      Predictions already exist that 100 cities will go bankrupt in 2011, not to mention the bankruptcy of California, New York, and other Dem-controlled states.

      They will use these crises as proof that “market capitalism has failed” and impose massive socialist restrictions on the economy.

      The FCC power-grab on the Internet will seem small in comparison.

      See:

      http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/20/debt-crisis-threatens-us-cities

  • Locke

    be amended by a national plebiscite?

    • snopercod

      There’s some real interesting history of the rules for cloture at Wikipedia.

      • Locke
  • pauly1620

    I agree with the sentiment of let the Democrats change the rules. As many of us here know, politics is cyclical. We are only one election cycle away from taking the Senate and reclaiming the White House. Ultimately, the lack of a filibuster will allow us to repeal ObamaCare and undo much of this socialist president’s agenda without the worry of the minority party (Democrats) blocking our efforts.

  • Locke

    The Constitution establishes procedures for amending the Constitution.

    The Senate Rules establish procedures for amending the Senate Rules.

    Both require supermajorities.

    And this is not just something that might be looked on as “persuasive” – “The founders thought this was a good way to do this sort of thing and we ought to give that some deference”. It is decisive in construing the grant of authority in Article I, section 5, par. 2: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings….”

    Rules are nothing if they are not binding and the Constitutional amendment procedures in Article V establish that “rules” means binding rules that may require supermajorities for their amendment.

    So I would argue, anyway, and so I would expect the Supreme Court to rule.

    • Locke
  • smitch61

    And do it already, I dare them.

  • Mike Ferguson
  • saintgeorgegentile

    that has already been passed by the House besides Cap & Trade? If this gets passed with 51 votes we might be looking at super majorities in 2012 in both houses. Now if only the Rs can avoid shooting themselves over the presidential pick.

    • Scope

      that with the end of the 111th Congress, any unpassed legislation by either house goes away. The 112th House will need to pass a new Cap and Trade bill, and with the new R majority, that is unlikely. I believe that was why the Senate had to pass everything it could in the lame duck, otherwise anything that had already passed the House would have had to be rewritten and passed again in the House before it could move to the Senate. If I’m wrong about this, I’m sure someone will correct me.

      I agree with everyone here that the court confirmation process is the critical point. With Lindsay Graham, speaking about Kagan, said that the president deserved to have his nominees confirmed, I am not hopeful. Murkowski also voted for every federal court nominee, without fail.

      The only hope for the country will be with the Republican House majorities cutting every last single dollar from the budget, that would be needed for Obama and the Libs to fund their passed Marxist agenda. The march budget fight will be telling as to how far the Republicans are willing to go to move the country back in the correct direction, away from Socialism/Marxism. If the money isn’t there to set up the hundreds, maybe thousands of new agencies that will be required to institute the Libs agenda, we can find some hope. We will see what Paul Ryan, and his new incoming committee members are made of.

      • carolina

        Because of the change in the House majority, we have some protection.

        I, too, will be watching the repubs………. with cautious optimism. I do think the newly elected repub reps and senators will dramatically change the tenor of the debate in both the House and the Senate. Good!

        • saintgeorgegentile

          it’s a relief.

  • http://www.800cart.com Ron Robinson

    …when this was being discussed among republicans. So much so that the MSM dubbed it the ‘nuclear option’ remember?

    So apparently it’s not so nuclear now?

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      Lame brain Lott did.

  • SoFiMil

    for any possible word change that is word-for-word their much more limited rule change on filibusters of judicial nominees that that Senate Democrats resoundly rejected.

  • K.

    The letter signed by the Democrats doesn’t specify exactly what changes would be made. In all probability what would happen is that the filibuster would be made into a “real” filibuster–meaning that senators would have to actually stand up and debate continuously to maintain it.

    I don’t agree with getting rid of the filibuster, but I do certainly agree with returning it to what it once was. Large rewards for a minority should only come at the expense of large effort and not on mere whims. Let’s do away with the silent filibuster.

    Here’s what Jeff Merkley said in his interview with Ezra Klein. I’m on the other side of the spectrum from Jeff Merkley on 90% of issues, but this is an issue where we agree.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/12/sen_jeff_merkley_this_isnt_a_q.html

  • http://mrnewyorkcity.blogspot.com lifeofthemind

    Rather than push for risky innovations that are likely to empower the Democrats by feeding the voters worst preconceptions of the conservatives, which is what any effort to enact “Nullification” will do, instead try a winning strategy to restore the Constitution. Any effort to enact a States Rights Veto on the Federal government will immediately produce a rejection by the vast majority of teh population. It will be demonized as proof that the Republicans are racists who want to restore the Confederacy. Never mind that it was the Democrats who ran that regime. Nullification is a waste of time and it will fail.Any energy spent on it is wasted and irrational to the point of being juvenile.

    What will work? Restoring the Constitution as it was intended to function can be done much more easily and it does not demand a novel or discredited doctrine. Repeal the XVIIth Amendment and the Senators will be restored to their proper roles as the State’s emissaries and tribunes to check the power of the Federal government. No federal appointment, no bureaucrat or ambassador or judge could take office, no treaty could be enacted, or law passed, against the wishes of the states.

    Elsewhere I have called for consideration of a different innovation that does not expose supporters to the historical baggage associated with terms such as nullification. Currently the power of Judicial Review as practiced by the Judiciary is unregulated and unsupported by any text other than the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall. It was an unused doctrine for decades that has taken on a life beyond all reason, turning judges into legislators. Also of concern is the fact that the selection of the President under the Constitution was intended to be placed under the supervision of the States through the agency of the Electoral College. That body however was so ill defined that it almost immediately became a dead letter and is widely viewed as an anachronism. The Democrats are pushing to circumvent the restrictions it places on their ambitions by chaining states to commit their Electoral College votes in advance to the winner of the popular vote.

    My suggestion is that we solve both problems, that of Judicial Review and that of the selection of the Executive, together. Instead of abolishing the Electoral College make it a permanent standing body. Make the heads of the 3 branches of government for each state ex offcio members and then have other members of a states delegation assigned for staggered terms of 3 years. Ensure that such appointments, except for the filling of a vacancy, be made 4 months before the EC selects the President. Grant the Electoral College the power to act as a Court of Judicial Review. Give the President as well as the Supreme Court and the Governors of a third of the States by petition all the power to submit an Act, Treaty or other instrument of the Federal government for Review. It should not be necessary for the entire EF to assemble to accomplish this task, as long as provision is made for all to review the matter before submitting their decision.

    Third I would support increasing the number of Representatives. If possible double them. This would not only make each more closely tied to their community but it would cut down on the vices of gerrymandering and group disenfranchisement.

    • GCBWI

      The Constitution requires that seats in the house will be apportioned according to population, and there is language apportioning representatives until the first census. Is there a law setting the total size of the House? When was it last changed?

    • mvymvy

      The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

      The bill preserves the Electoral College, while assuring that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election.

      The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

      Many conservatives support the National Popular Vote bill including 22 of the 27 Republican members of the New York Senate.

      Some examples of conservatives speaking and writing about National Popular Vote from their perspective.

      http://www.wsau.com/podcasts/wi-morning-news/national-popular-vote-pat-rosenstiel-and-laura-bro/

      http://www.ifcnews.com/opponents-of-the-national-popular-vote-have-it-wrong/#ixzz0xA1OrNLW

      Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.
      http://www.thatssaulfolks.com/2010/04/01/national-popular-vote-why-i-support-it/

      By state (electoral college votes), by political affiliation, support for a national popular vote in recent polls has been:

      Alaska (3)- 78% among (Democrats), 66% among (Republicans), 70% among Nonpartisan voters, 82% among Alaska Independent Party voters, and 69% among others.
      Arkansas (6)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 79% (Independents).
      California (55)? 76% (D), 61% (R), and 74% (I)
      Colorado (9)- 79% (D), 56% (R), and 70% (I).
      Connecticut (7)- 80% (D), 67% (R), and 71% others
      Delaware (3)- 79% (D), 69% (R), and 76% (I)
      District of Columbia (3)- 80% (D), 48% (R), and 74% of (I)
      Idaho(4) – 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
      Florida (27)- 88% (D), 68% (R), and 76% others
      Iowa (7)- 82% (D), 63% (R), and 77% others
      Kentucky (8)- 88% (D), 71% (R), and 70% (I)
      Maine (4) – 85% (D), 70% (R), and 73% others
      Massachusetts (12)- 86% (D), 54% (R), and 68% others
      Michigan (17)- 78% (D), 68% (R), and 73% (I)
      Minnesota (10)- 84% (D), 69% (R), and 68% others
      Mississippi (6)- 79% (D), 75% (R), and 75% Others
      Nebraska (5)- 79% (D), 70% (R), and 75% Others
      Nevada (5)- 80% (D), 66% (R), and 68% Others
      New Hampshire (4)- 80% (D), 57% (R), and 69% (I)
      New Mexico (5)- 84% (D), 64% (R), and 68% (I)
      New York (31) – 86% (D), 66% (R), 78% Independence Party members, 50% Conservative Party members, 100% Working Families Party members, and 7% Others
      North Carolina (15)- 75% liberal (D), 78% moderate (D), 76% conservative (D), 89% liberal (R), 62% moderate (R) , 70% conservative (R), and 80% (I)
      Ohio (20)- 81% (D), 65% (R), and 61% Others
      Oklahoma (7)- 84% (D), 75% (R), and 75% others
      Oregon (7)- 82% (D), 70% (R), and 72% (I)
      Pennsylvania (21)- 87% (D), 68% (R), and 76% (I)
      Rhode Island (4)- 86% liberal (D), 85% moderate (D), 60% conservative (D), 71% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), 35% conservative (R), and 78% (I),
      South Dakota (3)- 84% (D), 67% (R), and 75% others
      Utah (5)- 82% (D), 66% (R), and 75% others
      Vermont (3)- 86% (D); 61% (R), and 74% Others
      Virginia (13)- 79% liberal (D), 86% moderate (D), 79% conservative (D), 76% liberal (R), 63% moderate (R), and 54% conservative (R), and 79% Others
      Washington (11)- 88% (D), 65% (R), and 73% others
      West Virginia (5)- 87% (D), 75% (R), and 73% others
      Wisconsin (10)- 81% (D), 63% (R), and 67% (I)

      http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php

      • gekster

        Just becouse some are complaining about the system as is, doesn’t mean we have to change it.
        It has worked since it was enacted.
        It ain’t broke, don’t try to fix it.

        • mvymvy

          The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

          Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided “battleground” states and their voters. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that only 14 states and their voters will matter. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored –including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas. This will be more obscene than the already outrageous facts that in 2008,, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Nor were big states like California, Georgia, New York, and Texas Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

          Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

          Voter turnout in the “battleground” states has been 67%, while turnout in the “spectator” states was 61%.

          Policies important to the citizens of ?flyover? states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ?battleground? states when it comes to governing.

          Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation’s 56 (1 in 14) presidential elections. Near misses are now frequently common. 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore’s lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,500,000 votes.

          • gekster

            If candidates ignored states, it wasn’t the fault of the system.
            It was the fault of the candidate.
            It is not like they don’t have time to go to those states.
            They choose to ignore them.
            And turning it into a popular vote will only give us Europe light.
            All the power will be in the big liberal cities.

          • mvymvy

            Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

            The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.

            When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

            For example, in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.

            Likewise, under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

            Further evidence of the way a nationwide presidential campaign would be run comes from the way that national advertisers conduct nationwide sales campaigns. National advertisers seek out customers in small, medium, and large towns of every small, medium, and large state. National advertisers do not advertise only in big cities. Instead, they go after every single possible customer, regardless of where the customer is located. National advertisers do not write off Indiana or Illinois merely because their competitor has an 8% lead in sales in those states. And, a national advertiser with an 8%-edge over its competitor does not stop trying to make additional sales in Indiana or Illinois merely because they are in the lead.

          • gekster

            Post a diary.
            Your initial comment alone would do, but I feel you could add much more.
            Looking forward to it.

            And Merry Christmass. :)

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            For starters, there is no reason a Republican should EVER set foot in California, Oregon or Washington. Or New York State. For starters.

            We should avoid campaigning in those states and we should have a platform plank that specifically singles out CA & NY in terms of no-bailouts and we should be doing everything humanly possible to reduce federal spending in those states.

          • mvymvy

            Republican insiders look forward to presidential candidates having an incentive to campaign in California and New York, to increase voters for Republican down ballot candidates and conservative policies. In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
            * Texas — 1,691,267 Republican
            * New York — 1,192,436 Democratic
            * Georgia — 544,634 Republican
            * North Carolina — 426,778 Republican
            * Illinois — 513,342 Democratic
            * California — 1,023,560 Democratic
            * New Jersey — 211,826 Democratic

            To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004 — larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 “wasted” votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California?s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Single-issue drive-by posters never really are.

          • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

            Take your half baked idea and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.

            Merry Christmas.

          • Locke

            Let the UN pick our rulers.

          • Locke

            There is a reason this is a republic, not a democracy.

            And what makes you think it would be Europe light?

          • Locke

            You, gekster, and mvymvy deserve more respect.

            Pure as opposed to representative democracy is a very seductive idea that is not well opposed by angry ranting.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            This guy only ever pops up to push the lefty NPV idea.

          • Locke

            of the tone and dignity of the forum – for want of a better phrase.

            Sorry to be responding so late.

          • mvymvy

            National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a “republican” form of government or is a “democracy.”

            A “republican” form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a “republican” form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

          • Christine (Trelaina)

            of ignoring states where they are already winning or losing big…

            Presidential candidates will campaign and concentrate their funds in areas of high population density, where they can score the most votes with the least expense and effort. Small states will be all but ignored, despite their vote being “equal”.

          • mvymvy

            12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota),, and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections. So despite the fact that these 12 states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.

            These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has “only” 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.

            The concept of a national popular vote for President is far from being politically “radioactive” in small states, because the small states recognize they are the most disadvantaged group of states under the current system.

            In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia and Hawaii.

    • walter_hanson

      This plan is an automatic nonstarter if you have a mind!

      I live in Minnesota. Why should the city of Los Angeles, or New York, or Chicago because they will turn out quite easily one million votes have a say at all in how Minnesota’s votes get counted. Furthermore some of these cities have more votes than some states. The city will outweigh the say of an entire state.

      Can you guarantee no cheating? In Minnesota apparently the last two elections we have had more votes than voters who showed up?

      What’s to stop somebody from voting in two states?

      Furthermore given what you propose there is no credible reason for a person not to vote third party since they will get a greater electoral vote count. A strong third party candidate can run just to screw one of the candidates. Ralph Nader would’ve gotten a lot more in votes than he did in 2000 under this system. A lot of Nader’s votes switched to Gore because they understood that Bush might win.

      The reason why Michigan and New York might want to do it is because they want a chance to have a say for party that traditionally doesn’t win their state. That’s the wrong reason to do it.

      Walter Hanson
      Minneapolis, MN

      • mvymvy

        A survey of 800 Minnesota voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

        Support was 84% among Democrats, 69% among Republicans, and 68% among others.

        By age, support was 74% among 18-29 year olds, 73% among 30-45 year olds, 77% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.

        By gender, support was 83% among women and 67% among men.

        Most voters don’t care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was counted and mattered to their candidate.
        http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#MN_2009JAN

        • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

          we should be paying attention to? I think not.

          • JadedByPolitics

            ..

          • acat

            Not that we needed to mention them, of course.

            Mew

        • walter_hanson

          Mylife a pollster can make a person a believe in anything. Howard Stern in 2008 had voters for Barrack Obama supported things which John Mccain supported instead of Obama and they thought it was a good idea.

          My vote doesn’t count if somebody votes for patients in nursery homes which has happened in Minnesota.

          My doesn’t count if there 2.3 million voters showing up in Minnesota and there are 2.33 million votes. Where are those extra 30,000 votes coming from. The Minnesota Supreme Court said this year that didn’t matter.

          Right now there is no control for fraud. And the major sources for fraud are big cities which are controlled by Democrats.

          So you’re a democrat who wants to help Democrats win.

          Be honest about it!

          Walter Hanson
          Minneapolis, MN

      • mvymvy

        The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.

        • acat

          Can’t look at just the population of the smaller landlocked cities on the east coast – you have to consider New York City plus every suburb from Connecticut down through the Jersey Shore.

          Further, are you looking at total population, eligible to vote, registered to vote, or actually voted? Makes a rather large difference, eh?

          Mew

          • gekster

            It’s a clone, just a different theme.

          • acat

            Been watching the droppings for a couple days. Decided to sharpen my claws a bit.

            Mew

          • gekster

            He’s stuck on stupid.
            His candidate can’t win with the system we have, so it must be chamged.
            Typical liberal.

      • mvymvy

        The potential for political fraud and mischief is not uniquely associated with either the current system or a national popular vote. In fact, the current system magnifies the incentive for fraud and mischief in closely divided battleground states because all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state.

        Under the current system, the national outcome can be affected by mischief in one of the closely divided battleground states (e.g., by overzealously or selectively purging voter rolls or by placing insufficient or defective voting equipment into the other party’s precincts). The accidental use of the butterfly ballot by a Democratic election official in one county in Florida cost Gore an estimated 6,000 votes ? far more than the 537 popular votes that Gore needed to carry Florida and win the White House. However, even an accident involving 6,000 votes would have been a mere footnote if a nationwide count were used (where Gore’s margin was 537,179). In the 7,645 statewide elections during the 26-year period from 1980 to 2006, the average change in the 23 statewide recounts was a mere 274 votes.

        Senator Birch Bayh (D?Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, “one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes.”

        Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: “To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you?d have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you?d have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .

        For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election?and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

        Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?”

        • acat
        • walter_hanson

          The networks in 2000 Mylife ignored Katherine Harris warning about Florida being in two time zones. Calling Florida early cost Bush something like an estimated 10,000 and we wouldn’t have had the mess we did. As for the butterfly ballot probably very few people voted for Buchanon instead of Gore, but thanks to the Democrats promoting they convinced a whole of lot people they messed.

          Walter hanson
          Minneapolis, MN

      • mvymvy

        The current state-by-state winner-take-all system does not protect the two-party system. It simply discriminates against third-party candidates with broad-based support, while rewarding regional third-party candidates. In 1948, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace both got about 1.1 million popular votes, but Thurmond got 39 electoral votes (because his vote was concentrated in southern states), whereas Henry Wallace got none. Similarly, George Wallace got 46 electoral votes with 13% of the votes in 1968, while Ross Perot got 0 electoral votes with 19% of the national popular vote in 1992. The only thing the current system does is to punish candidates whose support is broadly based.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          Any system that lets a region stands for itself, is better for us.

          But you’re here solely to shill for the tyranny of the majority, so you won’t understand that.

  • froster

    “Those three proposals, which have received occasional support from GOP senators, include: elimination of the filibuster on motions to proceed to legislation; a ?continuous debate? rule that would require opponents of legislation to engage in debate when they are filibustering a bill; and removal of secret ?holds? that prevent legislation from moving to the Senate floor.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46753.html#ixzz190P81De7

    I would support all of the the elimination of the filibuster on motions to proceed.

    • Brian Darling

      It is important to note that Senators should not be allowed to change the rules with a simple majority of Senators. The rules specifically say that the Senate is a continuing body. The Constitution empowers the House and Senate to create rules. To argue that the filibuster is unconstitutional is wrong and incorrect.
      I oppose the elimination of filibusters on motions to proceed, because it will grant even more power to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He has engaged in unprecedented use of parliamentary obstructionism. Reid usees a tactic of blocking all amendments and Republicans have responded with filibusters. If you contrain Republican’s right to filibuster without forbidding Reid from Filling the Tree, then you will have a Senate that operates like the House — with pure majority rule and no right for the minority to engage in extended debate.

      • froster

        Ending secret holds and making the filibuster a real filibuster? That just seems common sense.

        • E Pluribus Unum

          ….to break rules about changing rules.

          When you allow a temporary 51-50 majority to restripe the field to their liking, by whatever”just seems common sense” to them, then you just toss on it’s ear that whole concept that runs throughout the Constitution for checks and balances that are in place mostly to protect from tyranny of the majority.

          The specific proposals don’t matter.

  • http://itsaboutfreedom.proboards.com IronDioPriest

    They need to be removed from office and prevented from ever returning.

  • Adjoran

    The requirement was 2/3 to shut off debate, although only of those present and voting, which required the minority to keep enough bodies in the chamber to stop that majority. The change, implemented by Democrats after their Watergate landslide of 1974, reduced the cloture number to 3/5, but of the whole Senate, or 60 votes no matter who is present.

    The newer system encourages more filibusters and ensures more will be successful, since no one from the minority beyond the speaker need be present as long as the majority can’t muster 60 votes.

  • eldstenorge

    I have voted Republican for 40 years, since I was old enough to vote. After seeing what they have done in this lame duck session, why should I elect more of them? They are the Senators from Sodom and Gomorrah in passing don’t ask don’t tell, and they have destroyed the defense of this nation with the START treaty. When I see challengers to all ten of those Republicans who voted for this and stay in the Senate next year, I will consider whether to continue to vote Republican. If they can be more like Coburn, inspire like Marco Rubio and Ron Johnson, and fight like Pat Toomey, maybe we will see some good.

    • walter_hanson

      Keep in mind at least two of the Senators who voted for start were defeated.

      But why whould you hold the party hostage to an Alaskan senator who refused to accept the will of her party and conned enough people in her state to allow her win a plurality not a majority, two Senators from Maine, a moderate for MA.

      With 46 real Republicans (I’m not counting the lady from Alaska who stopped being a Republican in September) Harry will have a tougher time making deals which is why they are talking about wanting to change the fillibuster.

      Furthermore with a Republican House we aren’t talking about the Senate being a rubber stamp for the House anymore.

      Walter Hanson
      Minneapolis, MN

  • romeg

    and its meaning.

    When the Republicans were threatening to do pretty much the same thing it was called “The Nuclear (or Nukular) Option” implying that it was A Bad Thing. Not a day passed that there wasn’t a ‘news’ story decrying the Naked Abuses of Power at the hands of the Evil and Dastardly Republican majority.

    But NOW, in the hand of the Great and Wonderful DemOZ it has become a defense against The Party of NO. Isn’t it amazing how much you can influence public policy and perception when you have a slavish print and electronic media at your beck and call.

    With apologies to John Stossel, Give me a freakin’ break.

  • swami7774

    …come 2013.

  • johnt

    or Democrats, or liberal trash at large. The inner nazi in them all won’t allow it. So we start off 2011 with a major fight on the floor and before the cameras. We know what side the media will take, now it’s up to Senate Republicans and the Normal People of this country. The light of day and time should drive these maggots back under their rocks.

  • sailingaway

    Thanks, I was going to post this. Were the Congress sticking to the Article I Section 8 enumerated powers of Congress, we should certainly stick to the Constitutional votes for bills. However, with Congress extra-Constitutionally deciding the sky is the limit on the subject matter of their bills, we need every curb we can get.

    I note that the Dems screamed bloody murder when the GOP discussed changing filibuster rules while Bush was president, but now are on board to do that.

    We really can’t afford this administration having MORE power to shove stuff down our throats. Think of the bills that would go through in that event.

    And per CBS Reid spent the bulk of time in their caucus discussing exactly HOW to reform the filibuster, which means they intend to use a cram down procedure not used since World War I to do it.

  • timelyrenewed

    While preserving the Senate’s effectiveness as a deliberative body is important, in the end all legislative efforts are by their nature subject to corruption, and even if not corrupt, can still be overthrown by the vagaries of future political developments. We need to seize this moment to go deeper, and permanently constrain future federal mischief by restoring respect for the constitutional limits on federal power.

    Unfortunately these constitutional limits have been so misconstrued and abused by over 70 years of progressive control of the Supreme Court and other branches of the federal government that simple legislative action is not enough. We need to promote amendments to the Constitution to restore its original meaning and structure. This can lock in this moment of constitutionalist resurgence regardless of the future vagaries of political parties or legislative procedures.

    The first step is to put through an amendment to the amendment process itself which will eliminate the unnecessary convention now required by Article V and permit States to directly initiate amendment proposals. This will break the current de facto federal congressional and judicial monopoly on interpreting the Constitution, and empower grassroots patriots on the state level to restore the Constitution by amendment. Then the Congress will be limited in the damage it can do regardless of its procedures. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com

  • Fernman

    This lame duck session was a failure from the Republican, Tea Party and conservative perspective. When a Republicam majority is again in a lame session they will be too scared to ever pass any bll of any importance settling for “being nice” instead. How can any Republican agree to a Start Treaty DURING A LAME DUCK SESSION????? Are these people idiots????

    Isakson actually believes that he voted for this START Treaty because Obama said it was OK to sign up for this thing. The Don’t Ask Don’t Tell should never had been agreed to and the so called Bush “Obama” Tax Cuts is a great fiasco. Did not some one stand up and ask for more in return??? Instead they give us 13 months of unemployment and a Death Tax INCREASE??????

    There is not a single Republican Senator I can give any of my hard earned money so they can come back to me with “THIS IS THE BEST WE CAME UP WITH”????? I am not mad I am just dropping out…

    • gekster

      Visit Cold warriors site, and learn how to become a Precinct Commityman.
      Go here for the details.
      http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com/

      Why drop out when you can do something that actually changes things.
      Change the party from the inside out.
      And there is little or no cost to participate.
      Befpre you really drop out, give this a shot.
      Alot of RedStaters have.
      And Merry christmass. :)

      • earlgrey

        These politiciians live in a sheltered world, and while the grassroots is working to change the playing field and give R’s an unprecedented level of support, it is going to take some time for them to really understand the strength and vigilence of the grassroots movement.

        Now is not the time to retreat.

        Already locally I have been rewarded for my efforts by meeting many of the local politicians (I helped elect) including our mayor. They know that I worked to support them as I was listed as a top volunteer. I have also been recommended to serve on the local party steering committee. It will depen on who is the chair of that committee as to whether or not I won.

        I konw the staffers at both Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker’s offices, and they know me by my voice. I have met Lamar and told him that i am a tea party memeber working to change the party. Both these R Senators are obsolete in my opinion, but I still think many people believe the conservative activitsm will be a passing fad, becasue they, nor we, really understand it.

        It has really been a short period of time, but I already feel rewarded for my efforts, and red state hlpes encourage me.

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

      made the lame duck session a net success

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

      You could say we got into this mess in the first place by people dropping out before the election in 2008. But look at what has happened since then. P got re-engaged. The tea party movement revived conservatism. We were able to stall, or at least slow down, the movement of the health care bill through Congress. Yes, it ultimately passed, but I think the slow-down gave some i Congress time to look at it and change their mind. It passed narrowly in the House.

      Cap and trade was put on the back burner. Yeah, I know the EPA took it on themselves to declare some new regulations but the bulk of the law is pretty much dead.

      The biggest achievement was of course the retaking of the House, and cutting down the Democrat majority in the Senate. None of this would have been possible if we all dropped out after the ’08 election. What needs to be done now more than when the tea party rose up is to stay engaged. Gekster hit it on the head, become involved in your local party. Work to get the most conservative candidates elected in the primary, then the general. Precinct committeeman is a good goal to shoot for, but even becoming a volunteer in your local party is a good start.

      We all knew this would not be accomplished in one election cycle, taking back the country. If anything the lame duck showed us how much work there is still to be done. But even there, I would say the defeat of omni-pork was a huge win. We won’t get many more if everyone takes a defeatist attitude and drops out. Burn up the phones, attend town halls, crash email servers on Capitol hill, that will get us through this. And support your local conservative candidates.

      • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

        “P” should have been “People”

    • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

      Why don’t you try dropping in to your local Republican Party committee and find out how to become a member of the Party? Then, after becoming a “card carrying member” of the Party, if you don’t think you can make any impact on the Party itself, by all means drop back out.

      And, please, report back here and let everyone else know how it went. It might inspire others to follow your example.

      Thank you.

      For Liberty,

      ColdWarrior

      P.S. Do you have an answer to your question as to why Senate Republicans are scared of Opuppet? If so, I’d love to hear it.

      • Fernman

        I appreciate the words of encouragement but save them for the newbies in this fight. I have been voting Republican since many of you could even vote. I have bben supporting the Republican Party since I have been receiving a paycheck over 27 years ago.
        I have been telling many a Republican in the party about the difference betwwen what Rush call the “blue Blood, entitiled” Republicans since before 2008.
        After all this history with the party I still see clearly that this was the worst Lame Duck session I have ever witnessed. And after all this history I am not one who is going to be happy with Mitch McConell’s statement “that this is the best we could hope for…”

        • acat

          You can say what you like about “the party” having let you down, but unless you get involved, either as Cold Warrior suggested, or by supporting strong conservatives directly – going around the broken party apparatus.

          The disruptive effects of the internet that made travel agencies into a memory, that turned real estate on its’ ear is starting to severely impact how politics is paid for… and this gives people like us, who work for a living, the opportunity to learn more and help great candidates like never before.

          As for Mitch, all I can say is “Primary”.

          Mew

        • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

          (And I’ve been getting a paycheck and voting Republican and sending money to the Party longer than you.)

          Being a registered Republican doesn’t make you a member of the Republican Party.

          Anyone can check the “R” on a voter registration form.

          That doesn’t get you a vote inside the Party. Where you can vote for the Party leadership.

          What I’ve been trying to explain to you and any other conservative who is disgusted with “the Republican Party” is that we conservatives can change it if we just get inside it.

          I refer to it as The Neighborhood Precinct Committeeman Strategy. Just good, old-fashioned, basic American civics. Carrying out your civic duty. We conservatives all need to quit complaining about “the Republican Party” and look in the mirror. (I’m guilty as charged; I didn’t get involved inside the Party until 2007.)

          The enforcement of our Constitution relies upon “we the people.” In your 27 years, have you ever been to a Republican Party committee meeting? Unfortunately, too many of us have been sitting in the political bleachers instead of getting onto the playing field — as precinct committeemen inside the Party where we can vote for the leadership, evaluate the candidates and then get out the vote for the worthy ones.

          Precinct committeemen are the Party.

          Read these two articles and then decide where you stand.

          www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2010/11/08/?now-we-have-to-hold-the-republicans?-feet-to-the-fire?-how/

          www.redstate.com/coldwarrior/2010/12/04/they-stopped-complaining-about-the-republican-party-and-did-something-about-it/

          I hope you’ll join us inside it. The future of our republic is on your shoulders.

          Thank you.

          ColdWarrior

  • Ausonius

    This should be a diary, but I have no time right now.

    Apparently if the Dems in the Senate cannot impose the radical agenda, then the bureaucrats will help a la the FCC:

    An excerpt from an A.P. story dated today, December 24, 2010: the opening sentence says it all!

    “WASHINGTON (AP) ? Stymied in Congress, the Obama administration is moving unilaterally to clamp down on power plant and oil refinery greenhouse emissions, announcing plans for developing new standards over the next year.

    In a statement posted on the agency’s website late Thursday, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson said the aim was to better cope with pollution contributing to climate change.

    “We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans,” Jackson said in a statement. She said emissions from power plants and oil refineries constitute about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution in this country.”

    See:

    http://www.mail.com/news/politics/94254-epa-moving-unilaterally-to-limit-greenhouse-gases.html#.7518-stage-hero-3

    • bobmontgomery

      In the WAPO article on this, it also discusses Salazar’s land grabs. And it quotes a Professor Lovejoy at George Mason who states that when Congress RESISTS, regulation is a ‘way forward’. Get that? Congress, in other words, THE PEOPLE, when they RESIST, the government may go around them. Of course of late, the government, with the aid of the ‘RESISTANCE IS FUTILE’ Congress, has not only been going around but riding roughshod over. There are those who say defunding these agencies is a solution. Defunding may provide a temporary respite, but it is not a long term solution.
      It is not only Congress which offers little resistance, it is also the military brass and it is also the scientific community.
      How Lisa Jackson can continually get away with talking about GHG “pollution” is incomprehensible.

  • mikerazar

    bar “compacts between states” and isn’t the proposal just that?

    • mvymvy

      Article I-Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution specifically permits states to enter interstate compacts. In fact, there are hundreds of major compacts currently in force (and thousands of minor ones), as can be seen at
      http://www.csg.org/programs/ncic/default.aspx

      Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states.

      • mikerazar

        The relevant clause is

        No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

        Has Congress consented to all the compacts you refer to?

      • mikerazar

        The relevant clause is

        No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

        Has Congress consented to all the compacts you refer to?

        I think I posted this in the wrong diary!

        • mvymvy

          Congressional consent is not required for the National Popular Vote compact under prevailing U.S. Supreme Court rulings. However, because there would undoubtedly be time-consuming litigation about this aspect of the compact, National Popular Vote is working to introduce a bill in Congress for congressional consent.

          The U.S. Constitution provides:

          “No state shall, without the consent of Congress,? enter into any agreement or compact with another state?.”

          Although this language may seem straight forward, the U.S. Supreme Court has methodd, in 1893 and again in 1978, that the Compacts Clause can “not be read literally.” In deciding the 1978 case of U.S. Steel Corporation v. Multistate Tax Commission, the Court wrote:

          “Read literally, the Compact Clause would require the States to obtain congressional approval before entering into any agreement among themselves, irrespective of form, subject, duration, or interest to the United States.

          “The difficulties with such an interpretation were identified by Mr. Justice Field in his opinion for the Court in [the 1893 case] Virginia v. Tennessee. His conclusion [was] that the Clause could not be read literally [and this 1893 conclusion has been] approved in subsequent dicta.”

          Specifically, the Court’s 1893 ruling in Virginia v. Tennessee stated:

          “Looking at the clause in which the terms ‘compact’ or ‘agreement’ appear, it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the states, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”

          The state power involved in the National Popular Vote compact is specified in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 the U.S. Constitution:

          “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors?.”

          In the 1892 case of McPherson v. Blacker (146 U.S. 1), the Court wrote:

          “The appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States”

          The National Popular Vote compact would not “encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States” because there is simply no federal power?much less federal supremacy?in the area of awarding of electoral votes in the first place.
          C

          • mikerazar

            This is yet another example of SCOTUS flouting the plain meaning of words in the Constitution. The word “no” hasn’t changed its meaning. Only the sophistry of the Court has grown to monstrous size.

            In the First amendment alone the word “no’ is interpreted loosely for speech, allowing all kinds of exceptions while the establishment clause is read as a noose around the neck of religion.

            I think the Founders accidentally left out the provision that the words of the Constitution are not meant to be read literally, but rather at the whim of the Court.

            The Constitution COULD have said “no compact infringing on the delegated powers of Congress”, but the Founders weren’t very good with words. Where does the word “encroach” appear in the Constitution? Ohhh, nowhere, lol

  • diesel53

    The frame work is set, count on it, big brother O has a plan, you see it, don’t be fooled.. They will try to divide us, they will use anything, and everything to get their way.. You better load the Stop, to the Top, or the casualty’s will be great..

  • Menlo

    I think some people are more interested in a check on power than on the ability to debate. I doubt open debate, as it was happening, would ever change any senator’s mind. Only what happens behind closed doors seems to change minds.

    Since the senate always divides along party lines now, I’m wondering if a change to allow a threshold of minority party support (I’d say about half a dozen) to actually pass legislation would achieve the same purpose?

    It may be interesting to speculate, but I don’t think a proposal for a significant change in the filibuster, as practiced, is going anywhere.

    • froster

      Inouye, Leahy, Baucus, and Levin (the Democrats from pre-1980s) are probably not going to vote for something that lowers the 60 vote threshold. The moderates, especially the ones up for reelection, like Nelson and McCaskill won’t either.

      • Brian Darling

        The left is pushing hard for the flawed idea that the Senate can change the rules with a simple majority in a new Congress. They argue this even though the Senate’s rules explicitly state that the Senate is a continuing body.
        Katrina vanden Heuvel writes at the Wash Post today: “There is only one day in the year when the Senate can make changes to its rules without the fear of that process, itself, being filibustered – and that day is fast approaching. Jan. 5, 2011, will be the first day of the 112th Congress and, as such, the only day where a simple majority can vote to change the Senate rules (on all other days, 67 votes would be required).”
        This asserion is false, yet you will here it over and over again by the left. They want to strong arm the Senate into a rules change so they can load up the Obama Administration with confirmations of leftists without the threat of a filibuster.

        • Menlo

          Just like they rail against the “evil corporations” and wealthy executives while legislating in their favor, history and intuition both tell me this is just talk. I don’t even think they’ll make any sort of serious effort.

  • Adjoran

    the motion to consider the rule change is subject to filibuster. So while “a majority can change the rules of the Senate” is a true statement, it is equivalent to the fact that a majority is all that is needed to pass the Senate.

    In both cases, the problem is getting it to a vote.

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

        With a simple majority vote. They are going to raise a point of order that the Filibuster is unconstitutional and that the rules don’t carry over from Congress to Congress. This is how they will try to strong arm a rules change with a simple majority vote.

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

          what was the rule change and what vote was, and supposedly, remains the rule today?

          My reason for asking is that I seem to recall some previous senate rules changes by majority vote at the beginning of past Congresses.

  • lv2rd117

    It is NOT “To The Democracy For Which It Stands.

  • debrarae

    The filibuster is ok for the DEMOCRATS to use. Yet when the REPUBLICANS use it, it’s called OBSTRUCTIONISM! I call the Democrat’s ‘sudden’ opposition (as they used it to KEEP a Hispanic from being confirmed to the SCOTUS in Bush’s term), HYPOCRISY!

    I have NO respect for the DEMOCRATS what so ever! I hope they ROT!

  • southcoast

    In 2004 when democrat senator John Kerry was running for president and it appeared he would win, the democrat controlled Mass. legislature changed the rules such that Republican governor Mitt Romney was could not appoint a replacement and Kerry’s successor would have to be elected. Fast forward to 2009 when Ted Kennedy died democrat governor Deval Patrick by the old rules would be able to name a replacement, he could not. There had to be an election held which as we know saw Scott Brown prevail.

    So, let the democrats play with the rules, by the Massachusetts’ example this should come back to hurt the party of the braying ass.

    • gekster

      they wanted to change it back to the original way.
      They couldn’t get away with it, hence the election.

  • sarg01

    … but the timing of this is crazy for the Dems. Not only are they defending huge numbers of seats in the next two Senate elections, but with a Rep House they can’t pass any Dem agenda items without engaging Boehner, even if they had 100 votes.

    On the other hand, if filibustering is done for, the Rs can pass any legislation in which they can peel 4 Dem senators, or 3 + Lieberman. Of course, Obama still has the veto, but it really seems like Reps are the ones who are empowered by eliminating the filibuster now.

  • Pingback: YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS !

  • Pingback: kizi

  • Pingback: URL