Republicans Charge Harry Reid Power Grab on Filibuster

[Joanne98]

The Washington Post writes it off as a minor "tweak," but Senate Republicans today charged that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is mounting an unprecedented "power grab" that will essentially eliminate use of the filibuster in many cases like fighting liberal Supreme Court nominations.


"It would forever change the nature of the Senate and constitute a naked partisan power grab. Such a move would disrespect our bipartisan system and the will of the American people," says a memo from the Senate Republican Policy Committee, headed by potential presidential candidate Sen. John Thune.

At issue is a bid by Reid to change the filibuster rules this week by a simple majority, 51, instead of the traditional two thirds. Since Reid's party controls 53 seats (51 Democrats and independents Joe Lieberman of Connectictut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont), they could institute the change over GOP opposition.

In the memo, provided to Whispers, the GOP also unleashed a broad assault on Reid's handling of the Senate in the past two years, accusing him of cutting Republicans out of debates and blocking GOP legislation. It claims that when the rules are applied, more bipartisan legislation is produced.

http://www.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2011/01/04/republicans-charge-harry-reid-power-grab-on-filibuster.html

[RDANGELO]

1. When the constitution was written, it was assumed that

deliberations would eventually be decided by a simple majority vote. If you never get to that vote, I believe what you have is unconstitutional. That's the reason they provided for the VP to break ties. The amendment that that provides for senators to be elected also stipulate that each will have one vote. That implies that each vote has equal weight, which is not consistent with requiring a super majority.

[Thav]

9. How dare you say the constitution says that!

After all, the supermajority cloture vote made it possible for the republicans to block so many bills. The constitution is something that should only be used to prevent your opponents from doing something, not something YOU want to do!

This post has set off the "too much sarcasm" meter.

[northoftheborder]

2. I don't think it is going to improve that much to change......

.....the filibuster rules. Nothing is going to be accomplished in this Congress, because the House is controlled now by Repugs. It might help get judges and SC nominees approved faster. If they had changed these rules last session, it could have made a huge difference.

[karynnj]

5. Judges, ambassadors etc are confirmed in the Senate ONLY

The difference may not just be getting them faster, but getting them at all.

[TayTay]

3. The shoe was on the other foot in the spring of 2005

when it was the Republican majority who were screaming about changing the filibuster and accusing the democrats of the horror, the horror, of wanting to shut down the government by using judicial filibuster.

Mitch McConnell remarked on the potential overuse of the filibuster by Dems back then: (Congressional Recrd, 3/9/2005: searchable through the senate.gov site under Congressional Record)

Therefore, I ask my colleagues to consider the ramifications of continuing down this path of institutionalizing this use of the judicial filibuster as a tool of obstruction. For more than 200 years we have recognized the careful balance our Founding Fathers struck among our three branches of Government. Judicial filibusters pose a danger to this constitutionally required separation of powers.

I believe it is not too late to turn back. It is in the best interests of both great parties and the Senate itself that we restore the norms, traditions, and precedents of the past 200 years that have served this country so well. It is extraordinarily shortsighted. Our friends on the other side of the aisle will have the White House again one day, and the shoe will be on the other foot. They will rue the day, if this precedent is allowed to prevail, that they set this precedent. I think it is time we stood back, took a breath and thought about this institution and respected its norms and traditions.

I counted 18 total cloture votes in the Senate in 2005. total. I counted over 18 in just the Sept - Dec Senate of 2010.

[karynnj]

4. Gee I remember when the Republicans spoke of the "nuclear option"

where they would get rid of the filibuster entirely.

[unblock]

6. early on, the house or representatives had unlimited debate as well; they changed & somehow survived

never mind that when republicans were in the majority, they threatened for years to eliminate the filibuster in mid-congress via the "nuclear option".

now that they are in the minority they naturally whine that democrats doing what republicans were threatening to do is anti-american and would destroy the senate.

[PoliticAverse]

7. Attack, attack, attack... n/t

[NYC Liberal]

8. Hey Repukes: YOU said the filibuster was UNCONSTITUTIONAL

when the Democrats used it from 2001-2007. YOU whined and whined and whined whenever there was so much of a hint of a Dem filibuster.

[felinetta]

10. Damn I'm tired of their whiny nonsense.Big babies, always have to have their own way.Screw 'em.