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.”...
Still kinda stunned by the LameDuck legislation.
Some huge changes just steamrolled through and the Republicans, for all their fiery rhetoric, caved like a bunch of Obama groupies.
‘Significant disruption to combat units’ - General Amos.
This makes no sense at all. They are not going to get anything controversial through the Republican House, and they run a real risk of turning over the Senate to the Republicans in 2012. There is much to be lost and nothing to be gained by such an action.
Anyone remember “The Gang of Fourteen?”
We have the most f’d up government transition laws in the anglosphere! It’s nothing to wave the flag about or to be proud of. Just look at how American voters have been defied since Nov 2. It’s a disgrace.
Seems to me to be a great idea. Nothing can be passed without going through the House first, so the Senate will not be able to pass anymore of the DemocRAT agenda. With a lower threshold to pass the Repubs only have to get 4 Democrats on their side to pass what the House sends them. Might not be much of a problem coming up with those numbers with so many of the RATS facing a tough re-election bid in 2012.
It’s a really big deal for supreme court appointments.
I am livid. I have never been a third party guy, but I'm changing my view.
Watching the Dems during Bush's term taught me a lot about how they can use procedural rules to gum up the works when the want to; when they wanted to they were able to bring Bush's agenda to a complete stop even while they were in the minority.
So what did our guys do? All they had to do between the election and Christmas was slow-walk everything until the time ran out. They didn't. They talked about it but they didn't do it.
Now you have weak-links talking about "considering" what to do about Obama-care, and wondering aloud how they are going to work with the president. I get a queasy feeling about these guys, like we're about to be had again.
I don't think they realize how many people are about ready to wash their hands of the GOP. If they mess things up in January this party could split. The president is using the institutions of power to cloak a revolution. If the opposition doesn't use those same institutions to foil that revolution, bad things are coming.
“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).”
It might have the opposite effect. With 60 votes for cloture, every RINO vote is important. If they don’t vote against cloture on a bad bill, they are exposed for what they are.
But with only 51 votes needed and a 53 dem majority, RINO’s could vote against bills they support and they would pass anyway. So I think it would make it easier for the RINO’s to hide who they are.
Then, when we take over the Senate majority, they will be back to being RINO’s and vote wrong whenever their vote makes a difference.
Mitch and the gang have nothing to scratch.
I don’t understand what you are saying. Revenue bills must originate in the House; other bills may originate on either side. This is a recipe for having the rest of the Obama agenda rammed down our throats, in particular, judicial appointments and treaties such as START. But I do think if they do this they will come to regret it in two years, when 21 Dems in the Senate are up for re-election. I personally plan to take names.
Judicial appointments, other confirmable appointments, treaties.
Thats what lame duck sessions are for.
Immediately following which the 'watchdog press' will resume their watchdog role.
The process of Cloture was proposed first in 1917 by none other than....
.
.
....wait for it...(shhhhh, Glen don't tell them)
.
. Woodrow Wilson
“...January 3rd is a Sunday...”
-
Say what?
I feel EXACTLY the same way. I remember how Daschle, or virtually any other dem Senator brought the dammed Senate to a near standstill when Bush was president. During the past couple of years, I’ve been wondering why in the hell haven’t WE been doing this?
Bingo. We can and should kill every piece of legislation that enters the house. This is the most divided America we have seen since the 1960s if not the civil war and the congress should be reflective of that.
It was not the Republicans, but rather essentially all or most of the Democrats and few to some of the Republicans. I'm sick of the RINOs here who constantly bash Republicans.
Oops, wrong year :( Jan 3rd would be a Federal Holiday then. Should be Jan 4th then.
Sometimes gridlock is your friend.
My view is that every piece of legislation should have to pass this first litmus test: Somehow we’ve survived two hundred and thirty years without this law. Why do we suddenly need it now?
A second more temporary litmus should be: the Obamists are going to be gone in two years. Why should we pass anything they want? Why should we not instead spend the next two years doing a proctological audit of Fannie Mae? or TARP? I seem to remember all that money going to districts that didn’t exist; isn’t anyone the least bit curious where the money did go?
Why not take a holiday from mucking up the law books and spend a little time holding the O accountable?
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.