All over the Internet this morning, liberal commentators are bemoaning the idea that “41>59” – that now that the Brown victory denies the Dems the ability to force cloture on filibusters (barring the not-entirely-unlikely prospect of flipping someone like an Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins).
“Nowhere in the Constitution is this mentioned” they plaintively whine.
Either is the recipe for Senate Navy Bean Soup; it’s a tradition. So is the idea of cloture. It’s a rule the Senate adopted, largely in keeping with its own mission to be the deliberative, “conservative” body that is supposed to serve as a high hurdle for new legislation.
Dumb Dems don’t know this – and the smart ones don’t seem to be mentioning it – but the Senate can try to change this at any time. It’s called “the nuclear option” – changing the Senate rules to forego cloture and close debate on a simple majority vote. The Republicans talked about it when the Dems were holding up George W. Bush’s judicial nominees; they blinked and forged a compromise which was frustrating in the short run, but a good idea for the nation as a whole.
It’s one of a number of protections built into – or added onto – our system to protect the minority from the majority. It’s like the electoral college…
…which is another thing the Dems wanted to tube when it twarted their ambitions.
Majority rules in this country – but not absolutely. There’s a good reason for that; a stupid majority can be a terrible thing.
Said Brown: “The leader of the free world is talking about my truck”.
Had the Massachusetts legislature not tried to screw with things when Kerry was losing his Presidential run, a Dem would have been appointed after Kennedy’s death and a Dem would be elected during a regular cycle.
Karma’s a bitch.
Who would believe it?
I wonder if this is a vision of the future, or if it was reactionary to the HC debate, the 0-Man’s shrinking numbers, and the fact that the Dems made a bad choice and ran a stupid campaign? I would ‘a lost a bet on this one. I thought “the Machine” would get their voters out no matter what it took…
NPR is the only place I have heard mention that Scott Brown voted for the Mass HC bill that created the state system most similar to the current Fed HC bill.
Bad decision by the Dems to not pound him on that.
And he never said why he changed his tune….
I’m a bit discouraged with everyone involved. Populism can be a dangerous thing — people don’t often take to nuances and complications, so they ignore them and just bleat for change (It happened with the 0-Man phenomena, and now with the HC debate).
Politicians are natural liars, so what you end up with are leaders that in bad times, instead of solving problems, exacerbate them by bending to whatever portion of the population is squealing the loudest.
In good times the same Pols are for sale to the highest bidder. This goes for both Dems and ‘pubs.
SCOTUS says a simple majority is all that’s required to change the rules in US vs. Ballin (1892): “All that the constitution requires is the presence of a majority, and when that majority are present the power of the house arises.”
But the Senate went farther in using its powers under Article I Section 5 to set their own rules, and in their Rule XXII, says something a bit different about changing the rules for the filibuster; they require a 2/3s majority to change the rules.
[blockquote]”Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?” And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn — except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting — then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of. [/blockquote]
Constitutional crisis in trying to repeal the filibuster anyone?
The Dems in MA demanded that special elections be held to replace a US Senator when the seat became vacant unexpectedly. They didn’t want Romney to have the opportunity to appoint a Republican to fill Kerry’s seat (expecting him to be elected Pres.) They got their wish, but when faced with a special election to fill the Kennedy seat they thought it a good idea to change the law back to Gov. appointment. That failed and now they got what they had previously wished for (well not exactly). If it were a child behaving in such a manner that chlld would be forced to sit in the naughty chair.
“All over the Internet this morning, liberal commentators are bemoaning the idea that “41>59″ – … “Nowhere in the Constitution is this mentioned” they plaintively whine.”
Who specifically is saying this on the liberal side? Maybe its only all over the conservative side of the internet.
“Majority rules in this country – but not absolutely. There’s a good reason for that; a stupid majority can be a terrible thing.”
I’ll keep this in mind when the GOP gets the house back. And for when conservatives complain about gay marriage being legalized in more states.
U.S. Const., Article 1, Section 5:
“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
So yeah, the “it’s not in the Constitution” argument is a really dumb one.
There’s no such thing as “gay marriage”. It’s a fantasy.
Who specifically is saying this on the liberal side? Maybe its only all over the conservative side of the internet.
A number of lefties on Twitter. And at least one participant in this comment section who is, I suspect, face-down at a bar this morning.
I’ll keep this in mind when the GOP gets the house back. And for when conservatives complain about gay marriage being legalized in more states.
Tell you what, AB — if you can convince enough people to elect politicians who will pass gay marriage laws legislatively and also elect governors who will sign those bills, I’ll accept the decision and not say a further word about it. Get to it.
Does a daily Kos diarist count as a liberal commentator?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/24/818739/-Filibuster-this!
A number of lefties on Twitter is not all over the internet, and December 29th, 2009 is not this morning. I follow several lefites on Twitter and haven’t seen anything to that effect. Most of what I’ve been hearing from liberals (Al Franken, for example) is to seat Brown as quickly as possible so MAs constuents are duly represented in the process, which I applaud.
I’m sure a few lefties are whining about it, but I don’t believe its a widespread liberal opinion. If it is then count me out of it. I’m sure there are legitimate uses for the nuclear option, but this is not one of them. IMAO.
Wait… By “at least one participant in this comment section who is, I suspect, face-down at a bar this morning” were you referring to AC? Because I take everything that he says as gospel truth.
I heard some lefty pundit on NPR talking about the need for the nuke option, and how wrong it is a minority can hold up the majority’s will. That’s usually a good sign the DNC is at least floating a trial balloon.
It’s not AC, nope. Although ironically he IS face-down in a bar – in Topeka, Kansas, where the circus truck broke down Monday. No update yet.
“That’s usually a good sign the DNC is at least floating a trial balloon.”
If you’re right, I expect the balloon will be shot down quite quickly, so we’ll never know for sure. [But now that you put it that way, I see why you took your own shot at it. Good post.]
I heard some lefty pundit on NPR talking about the need for the nuke option, and how wrong it is a minority can hold up the majority’s will.
Like when the minority was refusing to let a vote come up about judicial nominees? Karma=Bitch dems
Gee I hope it’s not Rick. Wait, yes I do.
Although ironically he IS face-down in a bar – in Topeka, Kansas, where the circus truck broke down Monday. No update yet.
At long last, Thomas Frank’s rhetorical question is answered.
jackscrow, I share your opinions, already well expressed here.
Mitch, while some might be bemoaning the change in senate majority, not everyone has been busily bemoaning. Like my comments about Brown on ABs blog, which mirrored and expanded on my comments to you.
Assuming you would consider AB a ‘lefty blog’.
I’ll be writing something further about the Brown Coakley race on Penigma, right after I finish reviewing “Sarah from Alaska”….and I won’t be bemoaning Coakley’s loss.
I think the hysteria about ending fillibusters is overblown. Let the GOP fillibuster until they fall over from exhaustion – and then vote the majority.
It’s not AC, nope. Although ironically he IS face-down in a bar – in Topeka, Kansas, where the circus truck broke down Monday. No update yet.
All aboard, Nebraska’s our next stop.
Kermit, would that be the same Rick who believes that Congress has the right to simply declare DC a state of the union?
And who believes that Missouri was a Confederate state?
And who once defended his defeatism re Iraq by saying that we had already lost?
For those who are still confused over the reason for the Senate and the filibuster, may I point them to the Federalist Papers? Then look up the difference between a “republic” and a “democracy,” and thank God you live in the former and not the latter.
So far at least.
And let us know when you find the word ‘democracy’ in the constitution.
Yes Terry. RicKDFL, easily identified by his incoherent comments. It’s like that bar has wi-fi or something.