Posted on 03/19/2005 10:26:40 PM PST by neverdem
With Republicans inclined to change Senate rules to make filibusters of judicial nominees impossible, Democrats have recklessly given Republicans an additional incentive to do so. It is a redundant incentive, because Republicans think -- mistakenly -- that they have sufficient constitutional reasons for doing so.
Today 60 Senate votes are required to end a filibuster. There are 55 Republican senators but not five Democrats who will join them. Republicans may seek a ruling from the chair -- Vice President Cheney presiding -- that filibustering judicial nominees is impermissible, a ruling that a simple majority of senators could enforce.
Democrats say they would retaliate by bringing the Senate to a virtual halt -- easily done within Senate rules. Republicans rejoice that such obstructionism would injure the Democrats. But conservatives would come to rue the injury done to their cause by the rule change and by their reasoning to justify it.
Some conservatives call filibusters of judicial nominations unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers by preventing the president from doing his constitutional duty of staffing the judiciary. But the Senate has the constitutional role of completing the staffing process that the president initiates.
Some conservatives say the Constitution's framers "knew what supermajorities they wanted" -- the Constitution requires various supermajorities, for ratifying treaties, impeachment convictions, etc.; therefore, other supermajority rules are unconstitutional. But it stands conservatism on its head to argue that what the Constitution does not mandate is not permitted. Besides, the Constitution says each house of Congress "may determine the rules of its proceedings."
Some conservatives say there is a "constitutional right" to have an up-or-down Senate vote on nominees. But in whom does this right inhere? The nominees? The president? This is a perverse contention coming from conservatives eager to confirm judges who will stop the promiscuous...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
But if the closure rule is changed, the Democrats can't even sustain a filibuster. What do they do then?
LOL! Even the USC allows ammendments. Senate and House rules can be changed. If the majority party feels the minority party is abusing the rules, it makes good sense to change the rules.
I think the constitutional option would affect only the filibuster on the judicial nominees. The filibuster on legislative bills/issues would remain in play, and that would be what the Dems embrace.
Why 67? Why not 51, or a ruling from the President of the Senate?
Doesn't this line defeat the whole pretext of Will's argument?
If the filibuster is going to be a tool for such abuse, then it needs to go. Whatever virtues it may have, its potential for abuse threatens our entire way of life.
Fine .. BRING IT ON
As for Goerge Will ...I fart in his general direction.
Yeah that's what I thought... what's wrong with them determining that the filibuster is no longer acceptable if it is going to be systematically abused, given that they can set their own rules?
"It merely requires 60 votes to call the question"
Would you like to restate that in plain English so the rest of us can understand what you're talking about.
If you're saying that a senate rules change takes 60 votes - then why is Frist saying he has the 51 necessary to change the rule ..??
If the RATS are going to filibuster then make them do it the right way. I want readings of Bibles and phone books, quorum calls and the whole Mr. Smith package.
It's too easy to say you have 41 votes till those 41 have to do the heavy lifting.
I'm with you on the elmination of the filibuster entirely; but then I've often been accused of authoritarian tendencies. Without any filibuster, the Senate could pass virtually every bill that the House does, notwithstanding the RINOs. The President's agenda will be passed in no time at all.
I think it be great, but I don't believe it will be eliminated entirely. It's been around for so long. The Senate is supposed to be a debating society; well, let them debate. The faux filibuster they have is just a procedural obstuction. A true filibuster is about as worthless as having none, because there's only a handful of ultra-moonbats who would make fools of themselves by speaking endlessly, and one of them has plans for higher office and would ergo probably not participate anyway.
FMCDH(BITS)
How about requiring an actual filibuster, not these "Gentlemens' Filibusters" that we have been seeing?
The Republicans have allowed the Rats to transform a rule which permits extended debate into a de facto super majority rule.
If the Democrats ever take control of the Senate and Presidency, they will not hesitate to change the rules. Let's not pretend that by not changing the rules we are preserving the system. The Dems have already thrown precedent and respectability out the window, it's over, now put their feet in the fire.
As I understand it:
Presently the new Senate generally votes to accept the rules of the previous Senate, normally a complete formality. The existing rules, once accepted, require a vote of 60 to change any given rule.
However, only a simple majority is required to change the rule that requires a vote of 60 to a rule that requires a simple majority for rules changes.
If that makes any sense. Or possibly I'm just confused. Wouldn't be the first time.
Quote Of The Day. I'm still trying to parse it :^)
Seriously, this is one of the most arcane controversies I've ever seen in the news. When reading about it, I'm sure the average person's eyes start to glaze over long before they really understand the issue.
However, the critical point is that allowing filibusters in the Senate is a tradition, not a constitutional requirement. It is truly hilarious to see liberals getting their panties all bunched up over the mere idea of a majority deciding to change a tradition.
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.