Change the Rules (Filibuster and the Left Response)

JonathanBWilson.com ^ | May 22, 2005 | Jonathan B. Wilson

[JBW]

Kevin Drum, writing in a blog for Washington Monthly in response to an argument from Juan Non-Volokh, enunciates what may become the new Democratic argument for the filibuster: you can't change the rules in mid-stream.

He writes:

"My broader point is that the real issue in the filibuster fight isn't the filibuster itself — or blue slips or Rule IV or any other specific rule — it's the general principle that rules shouldn't be cynically changed en masse just because your guy is in power and you've decided they're no longer convenient. As it happens, I'm not much of a fan of filibusters myself: their history has mostly been anti-liberal, and in principle I think majorities should be able to pass legislation if they can muster the votes. However, the rules shouldn't change midstream. If Republicans and Democrats could agree on a broad set of rule changes that eliminated the filibuster but didn't take effect until 2009, I'd support it. That's fair, since no one knows which party will be in control then. I'll take my chances that the Dems will win in 2008 and the rule changes will work in my favor."

But if the rules can't "change midstream", when does the majority get to change the rules? Christmas vacation?

[JBW]

What is telling is that the "no midstream rules change" argument is both new, slightly disingenuous, and gaining steam among the far left bloggers.

[Archidamus]

"you can't change the rules in mid-stream."

You want to bet? Just watch us. Let's git-r-done! Then we can listen to the libs tell us why it was a mistake to change the rules, but we will have clear sailing to put conservative judges on the appellate courts and the supreme court.

[Lord Basil]

Then tell them that the Senate rules are living and breathing--living Senate rules. They should understand that, right?

[John Valentine]

....slightly disingenuous...?

I'd say this specious argument is entirely disingenuous.

First of all the Senate rules are changed all the time, and every time a rule is changed it's "midstream".

Second, this isn't a rule change. It's an interpretation of existing rules.

Third, this is the Senate, not the NBA or a chess championship.

Fourth, comity or "fairness" is a concept Democrats invoke only when it is to their own benefit- at all other times they don't have the slightest grasp of the concept.

[JBW]

Well said, and that was the point of my post.

What is "midstream" anyway? In the middle of a Congressional session? In the middle of a Presidential administration?

Kevin's Drum's argument defeats itself. If the majority has the right to change the rules, it can do so at any time. There is no "midstream".

The second point of the post, for Freepers anyway, is that this is a sign of desperation and defeatism on the part of the far left. They've given up on their other arguments (Bush's picks are extreme, filibusters are Constitutional, filibusters are intended as 'checks and balances" etc.) and now their only remaining fallback argument is "don't change the rules in midstream".

They've lost and they know it.