Breaking: Senate Democrats Gather In The Rules Committee To Eliminate The Filibuster

Gateway Pundit ^ | 04/22/10 | Jim Hoft

[American Dream 246]

The radicals in Washington are giving the Marxists in Venezuela a run for their money.

Senate Democrats have gathered in the Rules Committee to eliminate the filibuster.

Republican.Senate.Gov reported:

THEN-SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): “What [The American People] Do Not Expect Is For One Party, Be It Republican Or Democrat, To Change The Rules In The Middle Of The Game So They Can Make All The Decisions While The Other Party Is Told To Sit Down And Keep Quiet.” “What they do not expect is for one party, be it Republican or Democrat, to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can make all the decisions while the other party is told to sit down and keep quiet. The American people want less partisanship in this town, but everyone in this Chamber knows that if the majority chooses to end the filibuster, if they choose to change the rules and put an end to democratic debate, then the fighting, the bitterness, and the gridlock will only get worse.” (Sen. Obama, Congressional Record, S.3512, 4/13/05)

THEN-SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): “I Pray God When The Democrats Take Back Control, We Don’t Make The Kind Of Naked Power Grab You Are Doing.” (Sen. Biden, Congressional Record, S.5737, 5/23/05)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “The Need To Muster 60 Votes In On Executive Power And Part Of Every Senator’s Right To Free Speech In The United States Senate.” (Sen. Harry Reid, “Reid Floor Statement On Nuclear Option,” Press Release, 5/17/05)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY) On Any Threat To The Filibuster: “The Basic Makeup Of Our Senate Is At Stake. The Checks And Balances That Americans Prize Are At Stake. The Idea Of Bipartisanship, Where You Have To Come Together And Can’t Just Ram Everything Through Because You Have A Narrow Majority, Is At Stake. The Very Things We Treasure And Love About This Grand Republic Are At Stake.” (Sen. Schumer, Congressional Record, S.4801, 5/10/05)

• SCHUMER: “We Are On The Precipice Of A Crisis, A Constitutional Crisis. The Checks And Balances Which Have Been At The Core Of This Republic Are About To Be Evaporated By The Nuclear Option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum by those on the hard right. They want their way every single time, and they will change the rules, break the rules, misread the Constitution so they will get their way.” (Sen. Schumer, Congressional Record, S.5208, 5/16/05)

SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV): “I Believe That Efforts To Change Or Reinterpret The Rules In Order To Facilitate Expeditious Action By A Simple Majority, While Popular, Are Grossly Misguided.” (“Sen. Byrd Calls Proposed Democratic Changes To Filibuster Rules ‘Misguided,’” The Hill, 2/24/10)

SEN. CHRIS DODD (D-CT): “‘I Totally Oppose The Idea Of Changing Filibuster Rules,’ Dodd Said During An Appearance On MSNBC. ‘That’s Foolish, In My View.’” (“Dodd: Changing Filibuster Rules Would Be ‘Foolish,’” The Hill, 2/17/10)

SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CA): “Blinded By Political Passion, Some Are Willing To Unravel Our Government’s Fundamental Principle Of Checks And Balances To Break The Rules And Discard Senate Precedent. The nuclear option, if successful, will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of Senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments, and then legislation.” (Sen. Feinstein, Congressional Record, S.5398, 5/18/05)

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN (D-IL): “Those Who Would Attack And Destroy The Institution Of The Filibuster Are Attacking The Very Force Within The Senate That Creates Compromise And Bipartisanship.” (Sen. Richard Durbin, Congressional Record, 4/15/05, p.S3763)

• DURBIN: The Filibuster Is “[One] Of The Most Treasured And Cherished Traditions Of The United States Senate.” “Many of us in the Senate feel that this agreement tonight means that some of the most treasured and cherished traditions of the United States Senate will be preserved, will not be attacked and will not be destroyed.” (Sen. Durbin, “Statement of Sen. Dick Durbin Regarding the Agreement on Judicial Nominations in the Senate,” Press Release, 5/23/05)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D-NE): “Filibusters … Give Small States Such As Nebraska An Important Tool To Protect Itself From The Will Of The Larger States.” “Filibusters also give small States such as Nebraska an important tool to protect itself from the will of the larger States.” (Sen. Nelson, Congressional Record, S.5917, 5/25/05)

SEN. MARK PRYOR (D-AR): “I Was Very Concerned That When You Looked At The Nuclear Option, If That Trigger Was Pulled, You Had A Nuclear Winter That Would Follow.” “But in a broader sense, I did this agreement for them because I was very concerned that when you looked at the nuclear option, if that trigger was pulled, you had a nuclear winter that would follow.” (Sen. Pryor, Congressional Record, S.6000, 5/26/05)

[PISANO]

None of this makes sense. To change the rules of the Senate it takes 67 votes. Not going to happen.

[Mouton]

To arms.

[supercat]

I see nothing that would prevent the Senate from eliminating the filibuster at the start of the 2011 session. The filibuster, after all, is not defined in the Constitution, but is simply a Senate rule; the Constitution expressly states that no such rules from one Congress are binding on a future Congress. It has long been customary that each new Senate will agree to the filibuster rule, and will agree that future rule changes in that Senate will require a 2/3 vote. If the current Senate so agreed, they should be so bound.

[nolongerademocrat]

Love him!

[denydenydeny]

Yep. Be careful what you wish for, Democrats. An end to the filibuster means that in January 2013 Obamacare is immediately over. We’ll also be drilling for oil in ANWR and offshore shortly after that.

[nolongerademocrat]

I’m going with “dig their own graves”.

[Lmo56]

The Filibuster is Senate Rule #22. Under current Senate Rules - I think it takes two-thirds [67] to change a rule. Don’t know how the DEMs are gonna do it. And, if they do - they better watch out for what they wish for ... they just might get it. And the next time they are out of power in the Senate - they will be whining to get it back ...

[nolongerademocrat]

Sickly thug - he looks sick to me. Maybe this entire fiasco has just been one of those “Make a Wish” things and it’ll be over soon... then life can get back to normal.

[SuperLuminal]

"Now we won’t need 60 seats to kill 0bamacare in 2013. "

How is that?

[VRW Conspirator]

Aye

[Senator_Blutarski]

I'm curious what their end game is? Perhaps they think they need to jettison the filibuster to pass Amnesty and Cap and Trade. They have probably calculated that if they pass them the Republicans won't be able to revoke them until 2012, at which point it will be too late. It's now or never for the Democrats.

I'm sure they are looking for a loophole that will allow them to change the rules without a 2/3 majority vote.

[Soul of the South]

“If they do this, it will destroy the comity in the Senate for the next two generation - perhaps permanently”

Is there any comity in the Senate today on the Democrat side?

Let’s suppose they go ahead and end the filibuster. They then vote in financial reform, immigration reform, cap’n trade, and union card check. They also vote to give the President the authority to declare a national emergency and suspend elections. Obama takes advantage of this “emergency” power and cancels the November election. Do you really believe the American people will rise up?

[camp_steveo]

“The Toyota Regime.

We press on the brakes as hard as we can and instead it accelerates out of control over a cliff.

80% of Americans don’t trust this government, and the government in response is hell-bent on screwing us as bad as they can while they can.

Is there any way to recall this product and fine the people who created it and advertised it as fit for consumers? Where are our hearings?”

___________________________________________________________

Excellent analogy!
~SC

[BradyLS]

Let them try, it will be easier to de-construct Obamacare later.

Amen. Republicans never use it anyway.

[SmokingJoe]

If they actually manage to kill the filibuster(and they can't), we will use the exat same rules they set up against them, when we take over the US senate in 2013. We kill 0bamacare without them being able to filibuster it. What goes around, comes around.

[VRW Conspirator]

If they do this, it will destroy the comity in the Senate for the next two generation - perhaps permanently.

I'm torn! One side says go for it! The other say nooooooo!

[Califelephant]

Yes, that was my first thought too: 51 votes to pass Amnesty and Cap and Trade.

[R0CK3T]

This crowd will not be satisfied until they initiate someone to start a civil war.

[Digger]

No Filibuster No Republic on January 20, 2011.

What! No filibuster then R-I-O-T-S.

[SuperLuminal]

Ok...{:-)

I really don't expect that any real election will be held in 2012...so that's why I asked the tongue-in-cheek question.

IMHO, if you could graph the obamao actions of the past 15 months, it would might indicate a non-zero probability of having no 2010 elections as well...