Biden derides supermajority rule - "the Constitution stood on its head"

[jefferson_dem]

Biden derides supermajority rule

Joe Biden, seeming to lay the groundwork for the case for moving health care legislation forward without 60 votes in the Senate, described the supermajority rule as a perversion of the Constitution.

"As long as I have served ... I've never seen, as my uncle once said, the Constitution stood on its head as they've done. This is the first time every single solitary decisions has required 60 senators," he said at a Florida fundraiser, according to the pool report. “No democracy has survived needing a super majority."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Biden_derides_supermajority_rule.html?showall

[Jennicut]

1. Yeah, why DO we need 60 senators for every single piece of legislation?

[last1standing]

3. For once we're in agreement (at least in part).

We don't need 60 votes, the current scenario is little more than a perversion of the Constitution created by a weak Democratic majority that has allowed it to happen. If Harry Reid would have demanded an actual filibuster take place instead of allowing the republican minority to simply file a form of intent, he could have called their bluff on many issues. If Obama had stood up at the bully pulpit and demanded an up or down vote take place, he could have forced the republican minority to explain to the American people why they were subverting both popular opinion and creating a breakdown in governance.

Sadly, neither of these people took the appropriate measures to end this perversion of good legislation and we the people are stuck with the results.

[smoogatz]

5. Yep.

The Republicans keep bluffing, and not once have they been forced to show their cards. Maybe Reid and Obama have learned a valuable lesson now about the real prospects for bipartisanship in the senate, and will move ahead with the voters' agenda. Biden seems to get it, at least.

[last1standing]

7. I haven't heard anything from Reid or Obama suggesting that, have you?

Biden says a lot of things that don't fall into line with the TPM of the day. Its one of his best qualities.

[Jennicut]

10. Well, at least someone in the WH gets it.

But I wonder if anyone will listen to him?

[Tippy]

2. Because the GOP says so? n/t

[midnight]

4. Hmm, I never thought about that. I have been wondering why this bill is so

un-user friendly. When your sick or well, you want to get in and out. You don't want more gates via insurance mandates, fines and audits, and or waits until 2012 when the coverage you should be getting now kicks in...

None of this will effect the rich.... This is for the poor and working class, and we have had no say in it..... I guess that is what has occupied my thoughts.....

[harun]

6. They need to address this sooner rather than later.

[DisgustedInMN]

8. Good to hear..

.. there's at least one member of the Administration that doesn't have his head completely up his ass. He'll be roundly rhamatized in short order, I'm sure.

[Cirque du So-What]

9. The Senate already wields an inordinate amount of power

Senators serve a six-year term - longer than any other elected office (I realize that SC justices serve for life but they're appointed - not elected). I realize that the Senate was designed to 'equalize' power among populous states & less-populous ones, but that creates another set of problems. Case in point: Max Baucus received more in campaign contributions from the health-insurance lobby than from constituents in his own sparsely-populated state.

The 60-vote rule exacerbates the problem IMO. It assures that deals must be cut in order to reach that magical number. On the plus side, however, this rule keeps far-RW legislation from making it to the President's desk when 'pugs hold a simple majority in the Senate.

[Enrique]

11. so why aren't they using reconciliation?

and why aren't they talking like this in public, all the time?

And why aren't they making the republicans actually filibuster, or making them pay some price for doing it?

I think it's fair to say that the 60-vote threshold gives them a convenient excuse not to do some things they don't really want to do.

[DrToast]

12. Now if they had been saying this all last year, it would have been better

[ClassWarrior]

13. The Filibuster Is Being Abused Beyond Any Possible Redemptive Value And Must Go .

From the Peace Team, via email...

The Filibuster Is Being Abused Beyond Any Possible Redemptive Value And Must Go

Aren't you tired of hearing the excuse that the reason no good legislation can survive the Senate is because the Republicans are forcing a filibuster on everything? Aren't you tired of hearing that a couple enemies of reform in the Democratic Senate Caucus itself are forcing every bill to be totally crippled by filibuster threats of their own.

The fact is that the Republicans smashed the old filibuster record in 110th Congress (2007-2008) by nearly a 2 to 1 margin over any previous session, and are on track to possibly break that ignominious record again. More than enough is way past enough. They are on record stating that the have an agenda of obstructionism, including the most perfunctory of procedural motions.

Stop The Filibuster Action Page: http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1027.php

This can no longer be tolerated. A minority party cannot be allowed to grind all the productive business of the people to an effective halt out of sheer strategic political spite. The filibuster must be abolished now.

For years we have been promised that if the Democrats got 60 votes in the Senate that we could finally make real progress on policy change. But instead what we see is that a couple "bad cop" obstructionists in the Democratic caucus itself can hold the whole rest of the country and the Congress for policy ransom with the filibuster rule, forcing absolutely the worst possible outcome in all cases.

One would think that if there is ANYONE in the Democratic party who is the least bit serious about real change, it is time for them to stand up and call for a parliamentary ruling on Constitution grounds, declaring the filibuster abolished. You would think de facto Republicans like Ben Nelson would welcome being off the hook with their constituents, no longer responsible for passage of bills they might personally oppose.

Somehow the Republicans managed to get their agenda through, for better or worse, even without control of the Senate. Are we to believe the Democrats are incapable of exercising power even WITH a compelling majority? Regardless of what happens in Massachusetts this Tuesday, few people expect the current not really 60 vote majority to survive the next general election.

Stop The Filibuster Action Page: http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1027.php

UNLESS the filibuster is abolished, any hope of real substantial policy change is therefore permanently dead and we might as well face up to it and make the end of the filibuster our primary agenda before anything else. Without all these filibuster threats from within the Democratic party itself, we could have had a much better health care bill now, even all other things being equal.

And to help build this movement we have designed and have ready to go a brand new "Stop The Filibuster" cap, with a neat graphic of a red stop light you are absolutely going to love. So after you submit the action page you can request one on the return page from your submission. Or you can get one directly here.

Stop The Filibuster Cap: http://www.peaceteam.net/all_gifts.php

Facebook participants can also submit the action page at

http://www.facebook.com/pages/UTalk/181891398444?v=app_2370152746

where you can also check out the new Voices tab application, which you can add to your own Facebook profile page.

And on Twitter, just send the following Twitter reply

@cxs #p1027

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible.

If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at http://www.millionfaxmarch.com/in.htm

NGU.

[Igel]

14. Remember the repubs' "nuclear option"?

I forget. Were you in favor of it?

I know I wasn't. My repub wife also wasn't. Some things never change.

[LeftyAndProud60]

15. Well, they won't be able to change it if Martha loses. It's a dumb rule that does nothing but bad.nt

[IndianaGreen]

16. It is a perversion of the Constitution

so what are they going to do about it?