« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Harry Reid Plotting to Abolish the Filibuster

There is no breathing room this year for those of us who fight endless GOP capitulations in Washington.  Within the first few weeks of the new session, we must confront a grave assault on the Filibuster in the Senate.

Harry Reid is plotting some version of the “nuclear option” to limit the filibuster when the Senate convenes to adopt the rules package for the new Congress.  It essentially works like this.  Every rules change in the Senate requires a 67-vote threshold to adopt the change.  Harry Reid is offering the absurd argument that the Senate is not a continuous body, and is therefore not governed by the rules of the previous session on the first day of the new Congress (before the rules package is adopted).  With that in mind, he plans to abolish the filibuster on “the motion to proceed” and limit the minority’s ability to offer amendments when they vote on the rules package.  He plans to do this with a simple majority vote.

Although the Senate already convened last Thursday, Reid used a parliamentary procedure blocking any adjournment of the Senate, so that the body will technically remain in its first “legislative day.”   This will provide him with the opportunity to pull the trigger later this month.

Aside for the fact that this represents an egregious power grab, especially in light of his refusal to allow Republicans to offer amendments to bills, his justification to change the rule is based upon a falsehood.  The Senate is absolutely a continuous body, as represented by staggering terms with Senators elected for 6 years.

The reason why filibusters have become so pervasive, even on the motion to proceed with debate, is because the filibuster is the only leverage Republicans have to force through a mere vote on their amendments.  Harry Reid always uses a parliamentary maneuver to fill the amendment tree with pro forma amendments before anyone can offer anything.  As such, an effort on the part of Republicans to give into this unfair and unbinding power grab would be suicidal to their own interests.

Unfortunately, there is no lack of Republicans who are willing to comply with Democrat demands.  Senators Carl Levin, Chuck Schumer, and John McCain are floating an alternative to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s effort to break the Senate’s rules to change the rules.  A bipartisan group of senators is proposing to put modest limits on filibusters, the procedural delays that minority parties often use to grind the Senate’s work to a halt.

The idea would provide the Majority Leader with two new ways to proceed to bills with severe limits to a filibuster of a motion to commence debate on a bill.  One option would allow the Senate to immediately proceed to a bill with a rule that allows two amendments by Republicans and two by Democrats. This would exclude rank-and-file members from offering amendments to bills, allowing only leadership-approved amendments.

A second option would allow a bipartisan group of ten Senators to move to proceed to a bill in a manner that makes it impossible to engage in extended debate.  It is unclear if any amendments would be allowed to bills agreed to by this option.

A second proposal would be a new procedure that would make it virtually impossible for Senators to block a conference committee on a bill.  Senator Jim DeMint has made it a practice to block conference committees, because they have a long history of rewriting bills and ignoring controversial amendments approved by the House or Senate and committed to the conference committee.  Furthermore, the leadership could use a conference committee to load up bills with matters unrelated to the matters committed to a conference report.  It would make secret deal making much easier for Capitol Hill insiders.  One other provision of the rules change would change the filibuster of nominations to only apply the regular rules to Cabinet level officials, the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals.

Taken as a whole, these ideas will not improve the Senate.   They would also reward Reid for his obstructionism, while diminishing the power of conservative stalwarts to disrupt the bipartisan commitment to grow government.

Cross-posted from The Madison Project

COMMENTS

  • gmat

    I don’t think he has the votes. He didn’t have 50 votes as of November, according to Udall (assuming Biden would provide a tie-breaker)

    • celador2

      A vote is a nightmare for several up for reeelction in 2014. Harkin IA, Levin MI, Landrieu LA, Pyror AR and Rockefelalr WV come to mind. Even aging Lautenbetg NJ may lose a few votes on a YES vote. One D Heitkamp from ND told ABC that in the form she reads bout in Washington Post this gun cotnol will not pass.

  • jaykali

    This seems like one of those stories to get clicks to be honest. Reid has 67 votes? I’ll believe that when I see it.

    • gmat

      Definitely not 67, but what Mr Horowitz is describing is a rule change of the first day of the session, requiring just a simple majority.

      • celador2

        Imagine what has become of the republic.
        A simple majorty Reid wants to further restrict a Right enshrined in the constitution as Amendment the Second that should be protected by the government!

        • jaykali

          I am getting lost in these rules. Is Reid changing some procedural stuff to “in effect” kill the filibuster? Is that what we’re talking about? Bc to actually kill the filibuster straight up they would need 67 votes correct?

          • jaykali

            OK so evidently you can kill it day 1 with 51 votes which is pretty interesting. I doubt that would happen though bc you wouldn’t get bills through the house anyway. If they had the House maybe they’d be tempted by this but they know that they want to be able to filibuster one day when they are in the minority so I really doubt this rule gets changed.

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

      Sounds like you need to get your facts in order before posting, jaykali.

      Stop trolling.

      • jaykali

        So you are saying that the filibuster can be abolished with just a simple majority? Why wouldn’t it have gotten abolished a long time ago?

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

          Get educated, son.

    • scash

      Focus jaykali; out of your 10 brains cells available; 5 keep you alive..1 to type…

      Now try to think what a simple majority means… not too hard now; or you may croak…

  • WhiteOut

    Please confirm if I understand this correctly: If this or some variation were to be put into place, then the only real action GOP could take against not having a filibuster to stop ‘bad’ bills in the Senate would be to either:

    a) purposefully not pass any bills through the House that need passage in the Senate, (or only pass bills of a ‘non-controversial’ nature)

    b) not bring a ‘bad’ SB up for a vote in the House.

    If I am correct, then at first glance I am ok with it–no more ‘bad’ bills passed/signed into law = no more crap the politicians can do ‘to’ us.

    Am I missing something?

    • fredflintlock

      You certainly are, WhiteOut: John Boehner and the Executive Order. Oh, and the 28th amendment which makes any Democrat (and only a Democrat) Senate Leader an absolute monarch over the legislature and any small country of his choosing. You may not have seen this amendment because it is the first amendment in the recently passed 2nd bill of rights that FDR so desperately pined for. And you may not be aware of the passage of this document because Harry Reid passed it in a super double secret session of the chamber that he held with himself in an as yet undisclosed DC men’s room just before heading home for the holidays. The amendment also requires John Boehner to wear a black & teal thong to work every Tuesday.

    • checkmate2012

      Yes WhiteOut and that is the A and B you just stated. So the Senate passes whatever dictator Reid wants without a filibuster rule, and then the House becomes the gate-stopper of all bills passed by the Senate that are deemed “good” by the Senate, prez and the MSM.
      We’re already labeled as obstructionists and heartless given our majority in the House and this would make us the total villians to stopping the madness in D.C.- the D’s and MSM would have a hay day! Just say no.

  • Jim_Riggs

    I say get rid of it. They won’t hold the Senate forever.

    • celador2

      Filibuster is not in constituion but Senate was designed differently than House. House is majoritarian and desiigned to move fast and ask questions later if need be. But it is House that has more authority to appropriate and tax They should not mess with that design either.

      Senate will not be a Club of wise seers deliberating above the fray, as they see themselves, but another majoritarian body based on partisan divides if filibuster is abolished. Oh I know they are there now on the partisan slick road that diminishes minority opinion no matter how large by procedural manipulations made up by Senate members.

      What is this rush to gun control?
      ,
      But Reid still pushes the fast quick sleezy ask questions later road with the rules change imo.
      He is such a hack.

      • sliverlining

        The rush to gun control is the obvious “Never let a crisis go to waste”. People are emotional milquetoast and get played all the time. An ill-informed vote counts as much as you and I fighting back.

        Your filibuster take is great.

        • celador2

          Thanks!
          The Democrat from ND Heitkamp told ABC and it was carried by Human Events that based on what she reads in Washinton Poat the proposals out there are too extreme and will not pass. Mental illness is a problem and the severe mentally ill getting guns needs be addressed.
          ABC’s George S asked her if she would consider gun control on guns and she said its all on table but based on what she has seen in press, “it will not pass”.
          Several Ds are vulnerable and up in 2014. Levin MI, Harkin IA, Rockefellar Wv and of course Pryor AR and mary Landrieu in LA.
          Reid has 55 and GOP 45.
          Reid has four votes to spare on gun control votes. Which ones get the waiver to vote NO. ND gets one waiver whether Reid grants it or not, tha tleaves three? Who among por gun Ds get the waivers to still allow 51?

  • scash

    hmmm let him… and it will show how left the Dems have become.. (nothing will pass the house) and secondly it makes obamacare that much easier to repeal, when the gop takes the senate..

    • celador2

      Makes sense.

  • conservativeradical

    May not be such a bad thing. Besides, the Senate wasn’t designed to require 60 votes to pass a bill.
    http://conservativeradical.com

    • inthemiddle20

      Thank you. A conservative approach would call for senate rules to go back to the 51 vote majority of the Founding Fathers. I also love the idea of having “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” styled filibusterers again. If a bill is so bad that you want to stall the Senate, then by golly get on the floor and tell us why till your blue in the face.

    • commonsenseobserver

      It also wasn’t designed to let people make up the rules as they go along.
      If he wants to change the rules and abolish the filibuster, it’s fine by me, but Senator Reid should consider his own image, especially if he decides that changing the rules means giving himself absolute power to make things up as he goes along.

      • inthemiddle20

        That is true. I don;t think we would be having all these problems if it wasn’t for that pesky 17th Amendment (which did some good). But that is a separate issue…

    • rustyoldgarand

      I agree with you. The filibuster is not part of our constitution, but merely a tradition, and not necessarily a good one. I think we have enough seperation of power without supermajority requirements in the senate. How quickly we forget that conservatives have often been on the other side of the filibuster reform debate. It was only back in 2005 that a Republican (Bill Frist) last threatened to use the same nuclear option we now decry as a power grab by the Dems.

      Slow-moving government is a good thing, but this has gotten ridiculous. Let the filibuster die and win back the senate.

      • commonsenseobserver

        “Custom reconciles us to everything. “

  • greyeagle

    Reid would want the filibuster in place if they lose control of the Senate. The Democrats just want to jam and cram more down our throats especially treaties and judges.

    • Dave_A

      The Constitutional standard for a treaty (2/3) is actually HIGHER than that of a fillibuster (3/5)…

      The notion that anything could be done by a treaty that could not be passed by the normal process is absurd, unless you end up with the *EXTREMELY UNLIKELY* scenario that 2/3 of the Senate is controlled by one party, and the other party controls the House & Presidency.

    • celador2

      Yes media and Ds approve of massive Ex orders by Obama and they approve of abolishing filibuster as long as Ds are in power to have one party majoritarian rule. .

    • jaykali

      Doesn’t every new congress set the rules for that congress?

  • oneproudpatriot

    Wait, so if Reid rams through filibuster reform then the public will be forced to judge Congress on the quality of the bills they pass instead of on the degree of gridlock in Washington? This is only bad if you think the Dems would become more popular should their proposed legislation become law.

  • checkmate2012

    It’s truly mind-numbingly stupid that any R would make a counter-proposal to the filibuster rules. Thanks again McCain! (Does AZ have a re-call election in their Constitution?) What a disgrace he is. His and Levin’s new idea of 2 amendments per side by only 4 members, makes those four super-Senators and the rest of the 56 are there just to twiddle their thumbs! So much for new voices like Cruz and Scott among others.
    There shouldn’t be any discussion or hint of allowing Reid to get his way. And only in D.C. is it possible to go back to the future by not being in session! So the 1st day wasn’t really last Thursday…were they frickin’ invisible? There is nothing that Reid won’t pull to get his way and that should be reason enough for all R’s to say no and laugh in his face; not to make counter-proposals. Geez.

    • celador2

      John McCain has survived recall at least once. About the time Bush ran for president and in his early presiency McCcin gave sime thought to joining Demcrats, reported Tom Daschle in his memiors. McCain has signed onto gun control over ten years ago perhaps with Kennedy.

      • checkmate2012

        celedor2, it’s a shame that if McPain contemplated becoming a D he didn’t just get it over with and stop pretending which side of the aisle he’s on. And if he survived a recall election, still don’t know when, it’s time for AZ to try again. He is aiding and abetting the enemy.

        Regarding the filibuster rule chg, I just read that McPain/Levin’s plan is just a temporary 2 year plan. So give Reid the super-power and then abolish if we gain control in 2014? What an idiot!

        “Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Carl Levin (D-MI) are proposing reforming the filibuster for two years and having the reforms sunset after then.”
        from http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/05/Reid-to-Postpone-Filibuster-Reform

        • commonsenseobserver

          I’m pretty sure there’s no recall mechanism for federal office. Or a good many would have gone long ago.

  • sliverlining

    I wish a filibuster was nearly mandatory. Anything to achieve gridlock is good.

    What in hell good has government done in DECADES?! Unfortunately, if you can think of ANYTHING good it is small compared to the bad.

    The fact that merde-for-brains Reid wants to diminish or abolish the filibuster already makes it a good thing. It sure can’t be a bad thing if that rodent wants it gone.

    History will not be kind to this era. I’ll do my best to clarify for the idiots as I age.
    ps Kennedy sucked as president.

  • sgtken

    Why is that fool John McCain always got his nose in something not good for the country?

  • Finrod

    Anything that gives more power to Senate leadership (on either side) at the expense of Senators in general needs to be opposed no matter what.

  • ihateliberals

    Im a Mormon and so is Harry Reid. I am ashamed of this fact. what I can’t understand is how Reid and get a Temple recommend and go to one of the mlost sacred places on Earth. Nothing he does fits with the teachings of the Church yet they let him in the Temples. This causes me to lose faith in our Church leaders and what they are supposed to stand for. Having been a Bishop and from what I know of him from just his public appearances i wuold not allow him to have the recommend. Harry Reid is an evil man and one day his day of reckconing will arrive. What goes around comes around Mr. Reid.

    • SoFiMil

      No one, including this Mormon, cares about your irrelevant ramblings. Focus.