Congress, Constitutional Law, Politics, Society

Dems Debate Changing Rules After Loss in Massachusetts

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.

161 thoughts on “Dems Debate Changing Rules After Loss in Massachusetts”

  1. Mr. Pitt,

    I suspect that all opinions not in support of the majority would be labeled as a “Troll Post”. After all, those whose opinions are not in-line with those of the collective, are disruptive to the collective.

    You could achieve your goal much more easily if you just talked the Professor into indentifying his blog as a “Progressive Blog” and stipulating that all comments that do not conform to the “Progressive Ideology” will be deleted.

    Isn’t that your objective?

  2. Stephen Pitt You are right. I think they have probably have been banned from other sites. They have to earn a living posting their propaganda so they have settled in here.

  3. Mr, Pitt stop crying already. There is only one moderator here and that is the professor. I proposed several months back the same thing you are. I’m all for it. I even suggested that the famed Vince Tearacy be given the honors and a few others. It appears Vince has not posted in quite some time.
    Are you there Mr. Tearacy

  4. Boy the stock market sure doesn’t like the new bank tax proposal. Heavy losses at the noon hour.

    It’s not looking good folks, more job losses announced today.

  5. Off topic, sort-of.

    It would behoove the moderator to contact Huffpo’s mods. Their system of banning is pretty solid. They use the “marked as abusive” link to prep and tame the troll. Too many hits and the trolls’ posts are X’d. Chronic trolls are summarily banned. A universal truth: Trolls simply think these are their sites to freely abuse. What they don’t understand is these are private property, and the owner can do as they see fit to protect their property.

    When you begin seeing regulars leaving for other blogs, the troll has won, and you have lost. The quality of the site goes downhill because the best and brightest, who expect civil dialog, leave. With all due respect, I’ve been on line too long not to know how these things turn out.

  6. I have no other aliases. I visit this site because Prof. Turley was one of my favorite law school professors.

    Its sort of hilarious that Turley’s blog is such a magnet for moonbats.

  9. s. pITT:

    “He will solidify the Party, rebel yell and all.”

    I never could figure out why he got so much grief over that, I always though it was just a guy fired up with enthusiasm for his cause. He did not deserve the shellacking over that, his policies and ideas absolutely but not that. It was pretty chicken sierra on the part of the Kerry campaign to do that.

  12. Now Wayne go easy on him. You just have to understand how he feels.

    For so long this was his house. When he got home, this was the place where he could kick up his feet, relax, and have conversation with like minded people. Then a guy like me comes along, stops by as an uninvited quest and starts tossin the furniture around a bit. That would make you mad too. But there’s not much he can do about that, because once you let a tick bury it’s head into the skin and he starts sucken that blood, and when other ticks move in and do the same, you start to get weak from the blood loss. Disease can set in and before you know it, your done.

  13. Duh to Bdaman,

    So far you have not used the letter C in a name. So that is why it is D to B. Do you really think your drivel is affective or effective? In your desire to master English? Are you attempting to infect this site with your drivel? Wayne I am sure, is another of your names. But who is to blame. You are correct there are many ISP and ISP blocking software. You can and have recreated yourself many times.

    The interesting things that you have discussed about me are from 8 months ago. I believe that Scott was the name, Scott Rumpp or Strump at the time. One thing for certain, I never forget.

    I have learned if you tell the truth as you see it and you keep that one truth self evident, you don’t have to worry about the paranoia setting in. If you think somebody is on to you, you are most correct sir.

  14. It is about to get worse for the dems. The Supreme court has taken off many of the limits on corporate financing of campaigns. It split 5-4. Republican appointees sided with the corporations, of course.

  15. Spindell: I do listen to the radio on the way to work. I usually flip between 88.9 and 91.7 in Milwaukee.

    Thursday morning, 91.7 has a great punk and hardcore show. I also enjoy the Chicken Shack on Friday mornings (honkytonk, rockabilly, classic country). You can (and should) stream live from here: http://www.wmse.org/index.php.

    88.9 is more free form radio rock, pop, hiphop, a lot of international music. You can (and should) stream live from here: http://radiomilwaukee.org/home.asp.

    Again, sorry to disappoint you but I don’t listen to conservative talk radio. I find it obnoxious. I feel the same way about NPR. So I listen to music.

    Is it really that hard for you to conceive that intelligent, **self-thinking** individuals can disagree on issues?

    As far I can tell you have fashioned yourself as some type of attack dog/bully shouting down the “trolls,” which on this blogs pretty much anyone with a conservative/libertarian viewpoint. Grow up.

  16. Say Good-Bye to Harry Reid

    President Barack Obama will appear with politically embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in Las Vegas next month, according to a White House official.

  17. Howard Dean should be running the show. Emanuel, Geithner, and Summers need to be X’d, for starters, before the Obama Administration can make any headway.

    Howard Dean needs to be brought in as Chief of Staff. He will solidify the Party, rebel yell and all.

    Obama has but a very short time to save his presidency and Election 2010. He must get bold and lose the Big Tent concept and get mean. He definitely doesn’t want Progressives as enemies. He and his administration are the problem.

    He turned his back on us.

    http://www.light-to-dark.com/Freedom_of_Choice.html

  18. But Mr. Pitt that would shut down freedom of speech. Besides there are many ISP locations for one to post from.

  20. Good Morning Mr. Spindell, and how are we feeling today?

    Lie back, close your eyes, take a few deep breathes before we begin today.

    Now what seems to be troubling you today?

Comments are closed.