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.
It’s simple: Find the troll’s isp and block it.
Rafflaw,
We are on the same page.
Ay,
I find it hilarious that a bigot and proven troll, with a plethora of screen names, is trying rehab his reputation by doing the same old thing.
Swathmore mom you would have to follow AY’s comments to me over the last several days to understand. Maybe Duh or Byron could explain it to you.
Jarvis,
Still can’t find an answer to the fact that the Democrats never had 60 votes. If you don’t listen to cable news then perhaps your a radio devotee for your facts. Same difference. Incidentally, I don’t take you seriously because you have little of interest to say.
Elaine M.,
You misunderstood my question.
Just because a majority of the Representatives support a bill, should it be pushed through if the majority of their constituents don’t support it?
I was referring to the constituents as the “minority”.
bdaman The song you posted was sadistic. You are blatantly trying to discredit AY because he was open about his personal situation.I could discuss recovery with you but it is not worth it. I have other work to do and you would not understand. You have both a political and psychological agenda that most people here are not interested in.
Food for thought, Lets see I want to spend alot of money on this and for that. I will go ahead and spend the money now. I will worry about how to pay for it later.
Later, Lets pass a healthcare bill that allows us to tax for three years before it takes effect. If they refuse to purchase, we will fine them and or put them in jail. I know, lets get the EPA to declare CO2 as harmful and as a polutant, that way we can regulate it and bring in more money. Lets not forget the latest proposal, the brilliant plan to finance the deficits, force IRA and 401(k) holders to buy trillions of dollars in Treasury bonds.
He’s meeting with Volker today folks. The American public is not stupid. The blinds have been open and the sunlight is starting to shine thru. The proof is in Massachusets.
They have printed so much money and spent it, they have no way of paying it back now.
Russia diversifies into Canadian dollars
By Peter Garnham
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/22f1bd26-05db-11df-8c97-00144feabdc0.html
Duh–
“If they don’t, should they pass a Bill that only a minority would support?”
You can’t pass a bill without a majority vote, doncha know?!
Elaine M.,
“They still have the majority.”
The question is not whether they have the majority in the House or Senate, but do they have the majority of the voters behind them? If they don’t, should they pass a Bill that only a minority would support?
What does that say about elected representation? Why not just elect a Democrat or a Republican (without regard for personal traits), and let the Party in the majority rule?
Can I get a “We don’t need no stinkin’ constituents”?
Who is exhibiting the most influence with regards to who gets elected? Democrats? Republicans? Independents?
Obama has wasted too much time trying to be non-partisan.
Pinandpuller–
“Until yesterday the Democrats had the votes. Why did they need bipartisan support?”
They didn’t! That’s why folks like me are so fed up with them.
They still have the majority. Let the Republicans filibuster. I don’t care.
Yea, I’m trying to keep everything pointing to Mass. Seeing how that’s the state in this thread.
I did U Mass Edu for AY and then the area code.
The pay masters are doing pay cuts across the board now that the pendulum is swinging back the other way. I’m sure pink slips are coming in November, another blow to the economic recovery.
Bdaman:
I did, LOL. I found the area code was in MA and so that is why I thought of Brown for Senate since this is the thread. As usual you have hijacked a thread for your nefarious troll masters. How much did that master pay? 🙂
U.S. Sen.-elect Scott Brown’s daughter Ayla has been flooded with requests from potential suitors since her father said she was “available” in his victory speech after his stunning come-from-behind win last night, the Herald has learned.“Let’s just say we had a family talk last night,” an embarrassed Ayla Brown, 21, told the Herald this morning. “I cannot believe he said that on national television.”
Brown, who laughed about the remark as she left the Park Plaza Hotel this morning, said her Facebook page has since been pummeled with requests. The former American Idol semi-finalist, donning Boston College sweatpants after an exhilarating evening, said her dad “was not joking,” when he made the announcement.
“I had 1,058 requests this morning – mostly from men,” she chuckled. “Not really sure if I’m going to be responding to any of them.”When asked if he was in hot water with his daughters about the comment, Brown said, “only one of them.”
http://bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1226975&coral-no-serve
Byron Call Me
Lunatic fringe
In the twilight’s last gleaming
This is open season
But you won’t get too far
We know you’ve got to blame someone
For your own confusion
But we’re on guard this time
Against your final solution
We know you’ve got to blame someone
For your own confusion
Yea hi, I’d like to dedicate a song this morning
OK who to
I’d kike to dedicte a song to AY
Pinandpuller:
“The Augean Stables.”
And angry Americans are the river. I’ll put my money on the American people and our sense of life. Hopefully we follow through in November and throw all these rascals out. Clean the house and give the senate a lower colonic to at least clean some of the shit out. And that is what most of our elected representatives are and thieving shit to boot.
So your reference to the stables is appropriate. Except cow shit can be put to good use as a fertilizer, ex-politicians aren’t even worth a shit.
Pay attention in your evidence gathering seminar today. You definately needed it. Especially the fact finding part.
From Dub to Bdaman I can count 13 different screen names you have posted under.
Where is your proof, where are the facts. Name names, produce witnesses. You are the expert in hand writing analysis Mr. ex AG.
The monkey is on your back, not mine.
Bdaman:
“My number is 413-497-0025”
is that the Brown for senate campaign headquarters? Stay on topic now 🙂