Are Dems planning procedural cram down to eliminate filibuster at start of new Congress?

[sailingaway]

http://www.capitolnewsconnection.org/news/senate-dems-attempt-filibuster-reform

That these guys will never see power again if they ignore the fact that the people were rejecting their previous cram downs won't be much comfort if they use the next two years to damage our economy and change our social contract as much as they have in the last two.

I'm going to be writing to my Senators to oppose this, but Democrats in elections in 2012 in more conservative areas are likely more persuadable. (Not here in California.) I have seen a couple of things saying EVERY DEM SENATOR has signed the letter asking for filibuster 'reform', and if this article is right, they won't need a proper cloture vote to get it through.

[Churchill2004]

There is some legitimacy to the point that the use of filibusters has massively increased in recent Congresses (an increase that began before 2006). The only intellectually honest way to look at this is to remove any thought of which party is which, and simply consider "majority" vs "minority"- I can go back to 2005 and find plenty of quotes from the same Senators who signed this letter decrying any threat to the filibuster as an attack on the republic, and vice versa for the Republicans who are now so fond of the tactic.

The Constitution specifies what items require a super-majority to pass, and most things do not. It is wholly improper that the filibuster has become a means to require 60 votes to pass anything, and I would say that even if the Libertarian Party had a 53-seat majority in the Senate. The classic filibuster- an extraordinary protest for extraordinary situations- should absolutely be preserved. But this crap where the minority refuse to end debate on everything that comes through because they'll lose the vote is in fact dysfunctional.

Besides, if you want to look at this from a partisan perspective, it's very likely that the Democrats will lose the Senate in 2012. So if they do this (and I doubt they will), they'll soon be back in the minority, wishing they had the filibuster to block the Paul-Paul Federal Reserve Abolition Act of 2013. :)

[sailingaway]

There is some legitimacy to the point that the use of filibusters has massively increased in recent Congresses (an increase that began before 2006). The only intellectually honest way to look at this is to remove any thought of which party is which, and simply consider "majority" vs "minority"- I can go back to 2005 and find plenty of quotes from the same Senators who signed this letter decrying any threat to the filibuster as an attack on the republic, and vice versa for the Republicans who are now so fond of the tactic.

The Constitution specifies what items require a super-majority to pass, and most things do not. It is wholly improper that the filibuster has become a means to require 60 votes to pass anything, and I would say that even if the Libertarian Party had a 53-seat majority in the Senate. The classic filibuster- an extraordinary protest for extraordinary situations- should absolutely be preserved. But this crap where the minority refuse to end debate on everything that comes through because they'll lose the vote is in fact dysfunctional.

Besides, if you want to look at this from a partisan perspective, it's very likely that the Democrats will lose the Senate in 2012. So if they do this (and I doubt they will), they'll soon be back in the minority, wishing they had the filibuster to block the Paul-Paul Federal Reserve Abolition Act of 2013. :)

I don't care which party is in power: gridlock is our friend.

However, in this case the Dems are pretending to a mandate they don't have to make SWEEPING changes nowhere supported by our traditions, so I don't think intellectual honesty has much to do with it.

Note the end of this article by CBS :


Update: Reid is already devising a plan with his caucus to take specific steps for filibuster reform, the Washington Post's Greg Sargent reports. The Senate leader reportedly devoted a significant portion of time to the subject at a Democratic caucus meeting this week.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20026505-503544.html

And note that under BUSH the Dems shrieked about the GOP talking about changing fillibuster rules. Now things are on the other foot, they want to do that. Where is their 'intellectual honesty'?

Think of what would go through with just 50 votes, and Obama holding the veto means it is no good in reverse.

And you say the Constitution says what should be a supermajority which would be all well and good if they were following the limitations of Congressional power in Article I Section 8 to begin with, but when the 'sky is the limit' on what they might come up with, CONTRARY to what the Constitution says, we need the filibuster.

[sailingaway]

Nancy Pelosi brought NOTHING to the floor that the Dems didn't want to move forward. If the Dems cram down this rule change with a procedural move not used since WW I, I say Boehner should follow the same practice. Unfortunately, it won't impact treaties or judicial appointments, which with Obama in the White House, is a real problem. He likes using treaties and agreements with other countries to pretend he can do things he otherwise has no Constitutional power to do (as with his agreements with the G20 putting our financial sector regs under the World Bank.)

[angelatc]

http://www.capitolnewsconnection.org/news/senate-dems-attempt-filibuster-reform

That these guys will never see power again if they ignore the fact that the people were rejecting their previous cram downs won't be much comfort if they use the next two years to damage our economy and change our social contract as much as they have in the last two.

I'm going to be writing to my Senators to oppose this, but Democrats in elections in 2012 in more conservative areas are likely more persuadable. (Not here in California.) I have seen a couple of things saying EVERY DEM SENATOR has signed the letter asking for filibuster 'reform', and if this article is right, they won't need a proper cloture vote to get it through.

The Republicans will happily go along with it, because it will speed things up.

[Churchill2004]

I don't care which party is in power: gridlock is our friend.

That's easy to say, until the day comes (and God willing it will come) when *we* want to get some liberty-enhancing piece of legislation passed. I'm a fan of divided government as much as the next libertarian, but if the rules say it takes a simple majority to pass something, it's a stupid rule to then say it takes 60 Senators to agree to even have a vote. These are not filibusters we're talking about, it's a misnomer to even call them that. The classic filibuster is, like I said, an extraordinary protest for extraordinary situations, made effective and powerful by the discretion and restraint in its use (and the fact that it actually required continuous occupation of the floor by speakers, which precluded having even a cloture vote). What we've seen is the dishonest use of cloture votes as a proxy for the actual vote, in order to turn the requirement for a consensus on the procedural matter into a requirement of consensus on the policy matter. Cloture votes are not supposed to be about whether or not the bill should pass, they're supposed to be about whether or not the Senators think their has been sufficient time for debate.






And note that under BUSH the Dems shrieked about the GOP talking about changing fillibuster rules. Now things are on the other foot, they want to do that. Where is their 'intellectual honesty'?

Did you even read my post? I made exactly that point.



And you say the Constitution says what should be a supermajority which would be all well and good if they were following the limitations of Congressional power in Article I Section 8 to begin with, but when the 'sky is the limit' on what they might come up with, CONTRARY to what the Constitution says, we need the filibuster.


Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right. One violation of the Constitution does not justify another violation.

[sailingaway]

The Republicans will happily go along with it, because it will speed things up.

They think people are becoming too radicalized but don't understand it is their own actions radicalizing people.

[TCE]

That's easy to say, until the day comes (and God willing it will come) when *we* want to get some liberty-enhancing piece of legislation passed. I'm a fan of divided government as much as the next libertarian, but if the rules say it takes a simple majority to pass something, it's a stupid rule to then say it takes 60 Senators to agree to even have a vote. These are not filibusters we're talking about, it's a misnomer to even call them that. The classic filibuster is, like I said, an extraordinary protest for extraordinary situations, made effective and powerful by the discretion and restraint in its use (and the fact that it actually required continuous occupation of the floor by speakers, which precluded having even a cloture vote). What we've seen is the dishonest use of cloture votes as a proxy for the actual vote, in order to turn the requirement for a consensus on the procedural matter into a requirement of consensus on the policy matter. Cloture votes are not supposed to be about whether or not the bill should pass, they're supposed to be about whether or not the Senators think their has been sufficient time for debate.

It will take a long, long time before that happens, and it is very likely it never will. Until that comes, we have to do everything we can to prevent the passage of anything by any means necessary. We can't bind ourselves to rules that the opposition has thrown out. If that means filibustering everything, then fine. I can't think of one bill in the past two Congresses that promoted liberty, so getting less done is good.

At a very basic level, anything proposed by Harry Reid will pass the Senate, but most won't get 60 votes, so naturally, the filibuster becomes the vote. The days of debating are long gone, every Senator's vote is a foregone conclusion.

[sailingaway]

Sorry, but two wrongs don't make a right. One violation of the Constitution does not justify another violation.

I disagree. It is because they are violating the Constitution and invading areas they shouldn't be regulating at ALL that we need to stop them -- including by filibuster.

For the rest, I agree with TCE.

[cindy25]

it would be the stupidest political move of the century; they don't have the house anyway, so passing something in the senate would be useless; they won't retake the house anytime soon, could easily lose the senate and whitehouse in 2012. they should be thinking of Jan 3 or Jan 21 2013.