Jonathan Turley reports on a possible end of the Senate filibuster and rants on Democratic lousiness

[alp227]

Leading Democrats are hinting at the possibility of changing the rules in light of the victory of Scott Brown in Massachusetts — possibly doing away with the long-protected right to filibuster. Rep. Barney Frank has called for the Senate to change its rules while Vice President Joe Biden has decried the use of the rule by Republicans.

Putting aside the value and history of the rule, the Democrats appear to be doing precisely what they accused the Republicans of doing when the GOP was in power: manipulating the rules in raw power plays in Congress. Many Democrats are seeking to push through legislation before Brown arrives despite that fact that he was elected primarily on the basis of his promise to oppose the health care bill.

--snip--

I have always shared some misgivings about the filibuster rule, but I do not like changing rules when it suits an election-challenged majority. This is simply not the time for such a debate – which will appear pathetically opportunistic and cynical. I think it would be a mistake to try to force through the legislation by slowing down the addition of Brown to the Senate or changing the rules to suit the majority. The insistence on the Democrats to pass something (or anything) labeled health care reform has led to a series of compromises and contradictions in the legislation. From the outset, the White House made so many compromises with the drug companies and other lobbies that it undermined its own credibility. Now, many liberals do not like it. Many conservatives hate it. Yet, the Democrats politically feel that they have to pass something at any cost.

--snip--

I have long been a critic of this Administration and the Democrats in their utter abandonment of principle on issues like torture and civil liberties. They have tried to be everything to everyone and have pleased no one but themselves. They deserve this loss. Instead of changing the rules, how about looking at changing yourselves and how you govern?

Maybe . . . just maybe . . . a few Democrats will now feel that they might as well give principle a chance since hypocrisy has not worked out for them. The Administration adopted many of the same positions as the Bush Administration on issues like privacy and failed to deliver on issues from gay rights to ending corruption in Congress. Democrats caved to lobbyists and engaged in openly corrupt practices that range from tax-funded vacations to obscene pork barrel politics. They has spent money with utter abandon and little concern for waste. After allowing lobbyists to cut up the current bill, there is no serious insurance reform, prescription drug reforms, or other needed elements.

Read more: http://jonathanturley.org/2010/01/20/dems-debate-changing-rules-after-loss-in-massachusetts/

[vaberella]

1. Jonathan Turley is not a Dem. He's a pompous ass with too much air time.

And he just never seems to go away.

[ShortnFiery]

4. Turley makes "good sense" ... Obama needs to lead like a democrat not a DLC corporatist. eom

[suzie]

15. You can say that again.

[firedupdem]

17. screw Turley. n.t

[AndyA]

2. Anything the Dems do now that would benefit them as majority,

can later be used against them if/when the GOP becomes the majority party again.

The benefits today can be used against them tomorrow. They should remember that.

[Nancy Waterman]

6. The GOP is totally abusing the filibuster

It should be abolished or Obama will be completely paralyzed for the next 3 or 7 years. They could also change the rules to strictly circumscribe the use of the filibuster, maybe give it a time limit on any issue, etc.

[onehsaquestion]

10. All filibusters are an abuse of power by the minority

If you don't think there will be a time when the ability to filibuster is needed by the Democrats you have a very short memory.

[xxqqqzme]

24. They may need it. Too bad they don't use it!

I can think of any number of times it would have been useful between January 20, 2001 & January 20, 2009.

[leftynyc]

11. How about making them

actually fillibuster instead of throwing out an empty threat. Make them stand up there, for days if need be, and show the people what obstructionists they are. Caving to the threat doesn't make them look bi-partisan, it makes them look like cowards.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Barney Frank specifically exempted this bill from any change in the filibuster

Direct quote: "Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the Senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the healthcare bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of this process."

This is why Frank is in Congress and Turley writes articles.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Isn't it about time for Frank to retire yet?

I'm ready to see him go too. :shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

19. That's a decision for Mr. Frank and his constituents.

Of course, you're free to offer your opinion on the matter.

[MadBadger]

14. Barney Frank is in the House, not in the Senate

So it doenst really matter what he thinks.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. Well, I didn't say that he was in the Senate. I said he was in Congress.

And since he's a very influential Congressman, it does indeed matter what he thinks.

[MadBadger]

20. YOu said Barney Frank specifically exempted this bill

A meaningless exemption.

That said, they arent changing the filibuster.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Right, in response to the contextless statement of the OP.

Turley made it sound like Frank was an advocate of pulling a fast one. I prefer accuracy in my pundits and decency in my Congress critters.

[Clio the Leo]

7. Ah ha! As I suspected....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x138560

[Jennicut]

8. You need to change the rules when the Rethugs use it to obstruct everything

rather then use it to debate on a bill. Turley is an idiot, anyway.

[nykym]

9. And what would the

republicans do if there was a push to end the filibusterer? Why they would filibusterer it of course. D-ohhhh!

[dccrossman]

21. Nope

Back when the (R)'s were talking about the "nuclear option", it only takes 51 votes to change a procedural matter, which includes the filibuster. Falls under different rules

[Spazito]

12. Turley is a libertarian republican (yes, they do exist) and an ego-driven

one to boot. What he has to say means little, imo, but I have NO doubt we will see his smarmy face on the tv spouting his crap.

[fmlymninral]

13. we liked the filibuster

when we were able to stop Judges that Bush wanted or other thing like SS reform. So though we do not like it now we will love it again we the republicans are back in control.

[TheKentuckian]

16. Meh...I tend to side with keeping it but making it "Mr Smith goes to Washington" style

The filibuster probably needs to be there to put brakes on insanity but there has to be a price paid (or at least a potential cost if the public disagrees) for abusing it.

Right now, the general public hasn't a clue of how obstrutionist the RepubliKlans are nor how they refuse any effort to do what they are paid pretty well to do.

[BrklynLiberal]

23. "changing rules when it suits an election-challenged majority"

Irony. It was the DEMS who changed the law in MA to require a special election instead of Governor appointment of Senator who could not finish term, when they thought John Kerry was going to become President and the Governor of MA was a repuke.