filibuster – Page 3

#rsrh Why the filibuster will probably survive.

(H/T Instapundit) Senator Harkin of Iowa and the two Senator Udalls of Colorado and New Mexico are trying to push a last-minute, lame-duck change in the filibuster rules, presumably so that the President will find it easier to push through appointments between now and 2012. James Taranto points out the obvious flaw in that plan: which is that once the rule is changed, it stays changed. And, given that the Class I Senatorial class (the ones up in 2012) consists of 23 Democrats/pretend-independents to 10 Republicans, the odds of the GOP getting a net of at least +3 are pretty good. Couple that with a win in the White House, and you get the Democrats’ Nightmare Scenario:

Imagine a Senate split 50-50, along party lines, on the ObamaCare Repeal Act of 2013, with Vice President Marco Rubio casting the deciding vote. That would be a satisfying outcome of the Harkin-Udall-Udall effort.

Indeed it would. Fortunately or unfortunately (depends on how you look at it), there are enough Democratic Senators out there with the wit (or the staff with the wit) to see the aforementioned flaw. Including possibly the plan’s sponsors: it’s instructive that all of the three Senators involved are up for re-election in 2014, not 2012. That’s plenty of time for the backlash to fade.

Moe Lane

#rsrh Down, boy! No filibuster! No!

I was going to be cute about this, but I’m actually a little tired, so no. There will be no amending of the filibuster next Congress: five Democratic Senators (none of whom are running for re-election in 2008) have announced their opposition, and given that +5 GOP in the Senate is a pessimistic forecast of November’s results five is all that we need.

This should shock nobody on the Other Side, but it probably will: theoreticians often stumble badly when they have to unexpectedly deal with real world conditions. It might seem obvious to most people reading this that Senators can comprehend that just because they’re in the majority for this Congress it doesn’t mean that they’ll always be in the majority, but there is a long list of things obvious to normal people that are apparently beyond the cognitive grasp of netroot theoreticians. I think that it’s a side effect of having to provide a constant internal reassurance that your policy positions show that you really are a good person, despite it all… but I’m practicing nonsensical psychology without a license. Or indulging in vicious character assassination; as I said, I’m tired.

Durbin (D, D Majority) vs. Durbin (D, R Majority) on filibusters.

You have undoubtedly seen by now that Senator Dick Durbin is now ready to try to kill the filibuster, not five years after praising the practice to the skies. You are also undoubtedly not surprised. But this particular bit below from Durbin is really quite interesting as an example of defiance against the tyranny of the majority: it’s an absolute pity that the senior Senator from Illinois has just demonstrated that he never actually meant a word of it.

I don’t believe I was elected to the Senate to be a rubber stamp. I believe I was elected and took the oath of office to uphold this Constitution, to stand up for the precedents and values of Congress and our Nation. We need to have, in our judiciary, independence and fairness. We need to have men and women on the bench who will work to protect our individual rights, despite the intimidation of special interest groups, despite the intimidation of Members of Congress. They need to have the courage to stand up for what they believe, in good conscience, to be the rights and freedoms of Americans.

I speak, as a Senator on the Democratic side, and tell you that our 45 Members will not be intimidated. We will stand together. We understand these lifetime appointments to the bench should be subject to close scrutiny, to evaluation, and to a decision as to why they are prepared to serve and serve in a way to protect the rights and aspirations of ordinary Americans.

The filibuster, which requires that 60 Senators come together to resolve the most controversial issues, that rule in the Senate, forces compromise. It forces the Republicans to reach across the aisle and bring in some Democrats when they have very controversial legislation or controversial nominees. It forces bipartisanship–something that tells us, at the end of the day, we will have more moderate men and women who will serve us in the judiciary. Those who would attack and destroy the institution of the filibuster are attacking the very force within the Senate that creates compromise and bipartisanship.

Those who are forcing this nuclear option on the Senate are not just breaking the rules to win, but they want to break the rules to win every time.

Mind you, Durbin’s hypocrisy on the filibuster is mostly about trying to look good – for given values of ‘good’ – when it comes time to pick the next Senate Majority Leader. The odds of Harry Reid holding that position in 2011 are currently not so much ‘slim’ as they are ‘withered.’

Moe Lane Continue reading Durbin (D, D Majority) vs. Durbin (D, R Majority) on filibusters.