Posted on 12/29/2010 1:13:21 PM PST by La Lydia
The Democrats are trying to change the Senate rules so that they can ram through their agenda when their majority shrinks next week from 59 to 53 seats. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been scheming behind closed doors to use his slim majority to vote on January 5 for the most drastic rules changes since 1975.
"Democrats lost the election. Their power has been weakened significantly. So they are trying to do a Washington-insider tactic to try to grab power, even though the voters told them very clearly in the election that they didn't like them, and didn't like their policies," said a Republican Senate aide.
In a closed-door meeting last week, Reid told the Democrats that he may outright break the rules on the first day of the 112th Congress in order to pass his audacious changes without bipartisan support.
"If Reid endorses the rules change, it would be the first time in history that a Majority Leader has opted to cut off debate on a Senate rules change by a majority vote," said Marty Gold, a long-time Senate leadership aide and now an attorney at Covington and Burling.
Currently, the Senate needs 67 votes to end debate on a rule, then 51 votes for the rule itself. Since Reid's rules do not have Republican support, he will need to do a historic end-run around the 67-vote bar (two-thirds of the Senate) to pass them.
Reid’s plan is backed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y), the ambitious operator who is Chairman of the Rules Committee. Schumer held six hearings in 2010 alone on the filibuster and Senate rules changes. Backed by Schumer and Reid, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) drafted three major rules changes, which he will bring up for a vote on January 5.
First, the Democrats would make the unprecedented move to change the Senate rules each time a new Congress is elected. Throughout its history, the Senate rules have carried over in a new Congress. The Senate is a "continuing body" because its members are elected every six years, on a staggered basis. So for each new Congress, two-thirds of the Senators are continuing their terms, thus the rules stayed intact.
"The Senate has always changed its rules by regular order," said Gold, referring to getting the 67-vote threshold. "So for Udall to do this now would be take that history and turn it on its head. This would be an extraordinary step that makes the Senate like the House of Representatives, with respect to how it treats its own rules."...
Second, the Senate Democrats are trying to change the filibuster process so that bills can get voted on with only 51 votes, rather than 60 votes (three-fifths of the Senate). A filibuster on a bill involves debate without a time limit. The filibuster is a stalling tactic used by the minority so it can affect debate and votes.
Under the current rule adopted in 1975, the Senate can end a filibuster by getting 60 votes for cloture, which would end the debate. After the 60-vote cloture hurdle, the legislation goes to the floor for a vote. Udall wants to change the process so only 51 votes are needed to vote on legislation, which would take away the power of the minority party to prevent passage of a bill.
“Dems thought 60 was too big a lift when they had 59 votes,” said a GOP aide of votes needed to end cloture. “Now that their ranks are reduced we fully expect them to try and turn the Senate into a version of the House so they can continue to ram through their partisan, unpopular agenda.”...
How can the current Congress meet on Jan 5th? Is it not a Constitutional requirement that the Congress first meet on Jan 3rd of the year after the election? I thought that this was part of the Amendment that moved the Presidential date from March 15th to Jan 20th.
I was right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The term must start on Jan 3rd by the 20th Amendment. WHY DON’T THE REPUBLICANS OR FOR THAT MATTER ANYBODY SAY ANYTHING???????
Man, I’m learning a lot today...thanks.
Just remember Harry, when the Republicans are in control, THOSE RULES MAY VERY WELL STAY IN EFFECT FOR YOUR SIDE.....................
Fine, then in January 2013 when the Republicans take control of Congress and the Presidency they can ram back out all the crap that was rammed in during the Obama 4 year debacle.
There’s not enough WALNUTS among the pubs to repeal ANYTHING! They are nothing but WUZZIES!! This country is so doomed....so doomed!
I so hope they do this. In the next Congress, the Republicans have such a large majority in the House that there will be a de facto divided government. After the next election, we will most likely pick up another 5 to 8 Senate seats and the Presidency. Then we will have the votes to do what is needed.
The term must start on Jan 3rd by the 20th Amendment. WHY DON’T THE REPUBLICANS OR FOR THAT MATTER ANYBODY SAY ANYTHING???????
January 3rd is a Sunday and Monday is the Observation of a Federal Holiday which leads to the first business day of the year as January 5th.
Me, too. One thing: Reid is actually going to try to do this as the opening gambit of the next Congress. Question: Will the Pubs filibuster?
One thing: this could actually work either way. If it goes down to defeat, then the Senate will be that much less obviously a problem for the nation but will still be enough of a roadblock to fuel campaigns by TEA party candidates for being the Congress of No. If it passes, then the effect will be vivid and might take out every incumbent not clearly a conservative in 2012 (not to mention finally nailing the coffin of Obama’s hopes that year).
The former would be more bearable day to day, but the latter would be more effective more quickly. Hobson’s choice?
I doubt Reid has the votes. There are a number of democrats who would worry about what will happen when the Senate changes control.
And just like usual mitch and the pubbies will be standing around scratching their balls instead of doing their 200k jobs.
Lame Duck politicians should not be empowered to “rewrite the rules” as they go out the door.
THIS is Pelosi and Reid’s “MOST ETHICAL CONGRESS EVER, MUTHERFUYER!!!”
They are scum. Socialst scum hellbent on ramming their agenda down the citizenry’s collective throat.
They should use their control of congress to freeze the president’s agenda. It takes both houses to pass a law; without the House they can’t push anything through.
So freeze everything. In fact, whatever the senate does, they should not allow one piece of the president’s legislation to see the light of day in the House.
And they should de-fund everything that has been pushed through over the last two years.
We are in revolutionary times; we have a president that doesn’t believe in the constitution and is prepared to rule without lawful authority. Nothing he wants should get passed through the House and nothing he wants should get funding.
Thus will be the greatest packing of the courts ever.
Removal of the scum they will appoint will still, however, be restricted by the Constitution.
It’s brilliant of the socialists.
They'd change the rules again then. Just as when a Republican governor was possibly going to have to replace a Democrat Senator in Massachusetts. Rule was changed to make it by public vote. Then when the public looked like they were going to put a Republican in Brain Dead Red Ted Kennedy's seat, the governor (DemonRat) seated a selected-not-elected Rat to pass Obamacare. It was an "emergency", you see.
NOTHING the Rats do is ethical. Lie, cheat, steal. Repeat.
Yeah, that's what the Republicans said they were going to do to Obama's plans for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, START, the Dream legislation...
“WHY DON’T THE REPUBLICANS OR FOR THAT MATTER ANYBODY SAY ANYTHING???????”
Is that a real question?.. Think about it? You expect the establishment republicans in the Senate to fight for what’s right? Now that’s funny....
Republicans really gave the Democrats the most “productive”
lame duck session ever, didn’t they.
Let’s see if they have the guts to follow your scenario.
I should think the latter of your focus would be most effective as Obama seems willing to circumvent the Congress readily by using regulatory agencies to achieve his goals, therefore defunding them should I believe be the priority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.