Skip to main content

View Diary: Harry Reid "Hints" At Re-Opening Filibuster Rule. HINTS??!! How About Action! (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  how is a majority "brute force"? (14+ / 0-)

    The Constitution gives power of rule-setting, confirmation and lawmaking to a simple majority of Senators. Is the argument that the Constitution is a tyrannical document for establishing majority rule?

    •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elwior
    •  The simple majority set rules in January (7+ / 0-)

      requiring 2/3  majority to change the rules mid-session.

      That's why I used "brute force" to describe the use of a point of order + simple majority now.

      Again: it can be done, it is the "nuclear option" which would destroy any remaining comity, the GOP would do it if the tables werre turned.

      The question I raised was whether it can be used for partial limitation of the filibuster rather than full repeal.

      The answer I proposed is that the majority can do what it wants, limitation or repeal, by brute force, whether or not there is a coherent rationale.

      IMHO the rationale is that the GOP's bad faith, scorched earth obstructionism, especially of nominations,  constitutes "extraordinary circumstances" requiring a drastic remedy in order to do the people's business.

      There's no such thing as a free market!

      by Albanius on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:44:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I fairly sure they can enact a partial limitation (7+ / 0-)

        as well.
           This would hardly be brutal, as their choice would likely be akin to the Merkeley-Udall proposal of merely re-instating the talking filibuster.
           What that does in reality is that it returns the filibuster to what it's supposed to be, a vehicle to allow the minority to continue debate. As it stands now, there is no real filibuster, only an almost sure-fire means to obstruct the legislative process in the U.S. Senate.

        "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

        by elwior on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 12:50:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  meta-rules are not normal rules (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elwior, Simplify, Ian Reifowitz

        It's simply incorrect to treat a meta-rule like the 2/3's "rule" the same as a normal rule. Metaphysics is not physics. Logic is not mathematics. (You can't prove the correctness of a logical system with logic itself.)

        The Senate does not have meta-rule making power, when you sort it all out. Those meta-rules only have meaning as long as a majority agrees to it.

        •  The Senate has the power to make its own (5+ / 0-)

          rules about how the Senate operates.

          That's really undisputed.

          However, there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that a Democratic Caucus that couldn't even get very close to 50 votes when it was time to make the rules for this session is going to get 50 votes to change the rules mid-stream.

          We couldn't get the votes when it was 10 times easier to do so.  Now that it's essentially impossible to reform the Filibuster, Reid is making wishy-washy noises of regret...which might be convincing if we hadn't been watching this same game for three sessions.

          income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

          by JesseCW on Wed Mar 20, 2013 at 01:30:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site