Leading Democrats are hinting at the possibility of changing the rules in light of the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts — possibly doing away with the long-protected right to filibuster. Rep. Barney Frank has called for the Senate to change its rules while Vice President Joe Biden has decried the use of the rule by Republicans.
Putting aside the value and history of the rule, the Democrats appear to be doing precisely what they accused the Republicans of doing when the GOP was in power: manipulating the rules in raw power plays in Congress. Many Democrats are seeking to push through legislation before Brown arrives despite that fact that he was elected primarily on the basis of his promise to oppose the health care bill. Sen. Jim Webb has cautioned against such a move, here. House dems have already indicated that they are not interested in the suggestion from some in the Administration that they simply adopt the Senate bill to avoid any vote with Brown, here.
By any measure, the GOP winning Ted Kennedy’s seat is a seismic event — particularly given the focus on opposing the national health care legislation. In light of the election, the use of interim Senator Paul Kirk to push through legislation would be unseemly when he was never elected and clearly does not represent the wishes of the people of Massachusetts.
Changing the rules when you cannot win elections (even the bluest seat in the bluest state) is equally unseemly. Yet, that is what Frank appears to be suggesting:
“It is time to shut it down. God didn’t create the filibuster, it’s part of the Senate rules. . . .We have a serious constitutional problem. There has been a de facto amendment of the U.S. Constitution in an anti-small-D democratic direction. . . . It is outrageous. It tends to be, in many cases, the senators from those smaller states that aggregate to get up to be the 40.” Less populous states, he argued, end up with a disproportionate amount of power.
Biden also seems to have such a change in mind when he said the following on Sunday:
“As long as I have served … I’ve never seen, as my uncle once said, the constitution stood on its head as they’ve done. This is the first time every single solitary decisions has required 60 senators,” Biden said. “No democracy has survived needing a supermajority.”
Biden did not seem bothered by the filibuster rules when he was in the Senate in the minority.
The use of the filibuster can be traced back as early as Roman senator Cato the Younger. Both the House and Senate once had the filibuster rule. The house got rid of it in 1842. In 1917, a rule allowing a vote of cloture was passed to limit filibuster, but it still required 60 votes. Its use increased in the 1960s as segregationists opposed civil rights legislation.
Celebrated in the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” the filibuster has often been heralded as forcing the Senate to reach compromises with large minority interests. If there are 41 members opposed to something like the national health care legislation, advocates insist that it is a good thing to force the majority to reach a reconciliation. The rule prevents a series of muscle votes by a slim majority.
Ironically, the health care bill may be an example of the value of the rule. Unlike the opposition to the civil rights legislation, there are credible concerns over the health care bill from both the left and the right. One could argue that such an important and historic bill should pass with at least 60 Senators or be rewritten to achieve greater consensus.
I have always shared some misgivings about the filibuster rule and Frank certainly has some good points to make. However, I do not like changing rules when it suits an election-challenged majority. This is simply not the time for such a debate – which will appear pathetically opportunistic and cynical. I think it would be a mistake to try to force through the legislation by slowing down the addition of Brown to the Senate or changing the rules to suit the majority. The insistence of the Democrats to pass something (or anything) labeled health care reform has led to a series of compromises and contradictions in the legislation. From the outset, the White House made so many compromises with the drug companies and other lobbies that it undermined its own credibility. Now, many liberals do not like it. Many conservatives hate it. Yet, the Democrats politically feel that they have to pass something at any cost.
I have to agree with Webb, who is being attacked by some commentators. If the Democrats can pass legislation with the new make-up of Congress, so be it. However, they should not tarnish their credibility or that of the final bill, by changing the rules or circumventing Brown.
I worked for Ted Kennedy in his 1980 presidential run and I am saddened that his seat was lost on this basis to the GOP. This was Kennedy’s legacy and the driving force of his final years in the Senate. However, the people of Massachusetts have a right to be heard on the question. Regardless of all of the effort to spin this loss, it was not simply a bad campaign (though Coakley was pretty weak in the campaign). This was a campaign that focused on national health care and the status quo in Washington.
I have long been a critic of this Administration and the Democrats in their utter abandonment of principle on issues like torture and civil liberties. While there are many good Democratic members who want to see a return to core values of the party, the party leadership has adopted, in my view, a pretty cynical approach to such issues. Instead, they have tried to be everything to everyone and have pleased no one but themselves. For that reason, many disillusioned liberals (including those who stayed home in the election) believe that they deserve this loss. Instead of changing the rules, how about looking at changing the Democratic position on the host of abandoned issues and values?
Maybe . . . just maybe . . . a few Democrats will now feel that they might as well give principle a chance since hypocrisy has not worked out for them. The Administration adopted many of the same positions as the Bush Administration on issues like privacy and failed to deliver on issues from gay rights to ending corruption in Congress. Democrats caved to lobbyists and engaged in openly corrupt practices that range from tax-funded vacations to obscene pork barrel politics. They has spent money with utter abandon and little concern for waste. After allowing lobbyists to cut up the current bill, there is no serious insurance reform, prescription drug reforms, or other needed elements.
Yet, the Democrats now just can’t understand why people are so unhappy with the Democrats. They have now lost Ted Kennedy’s seat and can only think of clever parliamentary tricks to avoid the result. The problem is much more fundamental and, if they do not understand that, they will not be in the majority for long.
Dud to Bdaman, et al,
Take a breath and sit down. You do need some help and please seek it. You are imperviously simple and for that you are known. Life is what you make of it and please remain around. This is the last I will respond to you.
Go to Beck and tell him you have won. Your multiple incarnations on this site is and has been exceedingly disruptive. From Dub to Bdaman I can count 13 different screen names you have posted under. That is sad as you have been defined as a troll from some of the regulars. Wait for Buddha to come back.
Have a good life and yes, I have the number stored and have had it for a while.
Bdaman,
Take a breath and sit down. You do need some help and please seek it. You are imperviously simple and for that you are known. Life is what you make of it and please remain around. This is the last I will respond to you.
Go to Beck and tell him you have won. Your multiple incarnations on this site is and has been exceedingly disruptive. From Dub to Bdaman I can count 13 different screen names you have posted under. That is sad as you have been defined as a troll from some of the regulars. Wait for Buddha to come back.
Have a good life and yes, I have the number stored and have had it for a while.
Byron
“It is about over reaching government and out of control spending. People are sick and tired of being told what to do and how to do it. We used to be a free people we are not anymore and we want our freedoms back.”
The Augean Stables.
ElaineM
“I’m not happy with the Democrats constantly making compromises to try to win bipartisan support–but I’m completely disgusted with the Republicans who have no plan other than to stonewall any kind of progress in working on plans to provide a program of affordable health insurance for all.”
Until yesterday the Democrats had the votes. Why did they need bipartisan support?
Mike S.,
I am with you. The majority should control and the Senate has been misused by the Republicans long enough. The Dems could also just return to what the filibuster used to be and require any filibuster to stay on the floor and debate instead of allowing the Republicans to filibuster without any effort. Make them go on the floor on CSPAN and try to tell the American people why they believe that the corporate takeover of health care is the best thing. Make them tell the public that reform is bad even when 30-40 million have no coverage.
Threw ya on the U Mass EDU didn’t I. It’s nice to see you back to your regular self. You do not handle what ever you were doing well. It is best to seek help. It’s not that you only do it every now and again, it’s you have not learned how to do it in moderation and in your case it can no longer be learned.
It is best to stay completely away from it. It may be in your best interest to see your Dr. and have him prescribe you disulfiram. Revia may also be a good one for you. When you reach the level to where you are cold turkey is not something for you to put between two slices of bread.
P.S. My nose is fine. It’s your constant assumptions that are killing me. It’s ok I’m use to dealing with addictive behaviors.
AY, please call me so we can discuss what ever it is that is bothering you. My number is 413-497-0025
Swartzmore mom,
This has been a nice day. Not so much for the Dems but none the less.
I have an evidence seminar to hit early tomorrow. Thanks for everything.
Bdaman, Duh, Wayne, Tootie, et al
That was good.
http://en.kendincos.net/video-llpjpjf-apostle-paul-a-wolf-in-sheep-s-clothing-.html
Now which one are you going to wear. Choices. Nose ok today?
http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/wpa0469l.jpg
Yea he carried over from his radio program. Only thing he didn’t say was it could end with a dead intern.
I think Glenn Beck took care of Brown’s White House run.
At a Wednesday press conference in Boston, Senator-elect Scott Brown, R-Mass., was asked if he sees himself as “presidential timber.”
He noted that he had not yet even arrived in Washington — but, at the same time, he didn’t seem to rule out a future White House run.
While there are only three years between now and the next presidential election, that is not much shorter than the four years that Obama had between his election to the U.S. Senate and his election to the presidency.
AY, you may find this interesting.
http://www.umass.edu/aesop/content.php?n=33&i=1
Mike S.,
Be wary of someone with many names. There is a certain writing style that is undeniably duh and many more. You know what I mean?
Gyges:
my thoughts about some reform were in my post(s), namely doing away with K St and reducing or eliminating corporate welfare and farm subsidies as well as ending the “too big to fail” ideology.
I think some change in the tax code is also needed so that we can use more of our money how we want to use it.
Additionally we ought to think about abolishing the Federal Reserve. A handful of unelected individuals who wield enormous power over our lives with little or no oversight.
EmpireCookie,
But I really think it’s a riot when Glen Beck’s insanity is unleashed on republicans. It doesn’t happen often enough.
I think you are a riot. I think it would be funny if he did do that.
Is that all you got? You have no substantive intelligent arguments, so you have to try to smear opposing viewpoints as “FOX News” zombies.
That’s just adorable. Precious moments!
For the record, I do not watch cable news, like ever. Sorry to disappoint you.
“You can nitpick all you want but the Democrats had 60 senators that caucus with them.”
Jarvis,
That wasn’t nitpicking it is fact. Something your TV time has had you confuse with reality. I wasn’t referring to drama/comedy series though, I was referring to cable and broadcast network news. As for my being majoritarian, I’m for it when the issue is control of the country by corporations and religious fundamentalists.
“They don’t. The state with the greater population has more power in the House, but the checking power is equal in the Senate.”
Really are you serious. I learned that stuff probably before you were born. the point is that the Senate checks the will of the people because they’re needed to send a bill to the President. This is why the Senate bill goes so far to go soft on the insurance companies. This inordinate power is the reason and unlike you I know American history and the literally hundreds of instances where the Senate has wrongly blunted the will of the people.
“Sometimes people misunderstand history. That’s why I provided you with a link to the Senate website.”
You’re right, some people don’t understand history, where you miss the point is that you’re one of those people.
“Do you blame Beck after this person announced on Nat’l TV that is daughters are available?…”
Whachew talkin bout Willis?
I think it was a moronic joke. But I think it’s a bit of a leap to suggest that making a moronic joke about your daughters’ marital status indicates that you might go after interns and potentially murder them.
I think he’s more likely to pose naked for page 3 of The Hill.
But I really think it’s a riot when Glen Beck’s insanity is unleashed on republicans. It doesn’t happen often enough.
His daughter Ayla has a great voice not to mention she’s available.