for a reason. This body is special and each member must be able to represent the State they are from, we the people and the values they hold dear. This is by design NOT a democratic body but rather a representative one. May the Republic long live.

A good day.

Can’t imagine what dems would do when they lose Senate majority, talk about a meltdown leading to a rules change. Or would they convince the media to beat down on the GOP more? Of course the media attacks would grow as more turn against what the majority of Americans want.

The only filibuster reform I’d support would be to make the debate specific to the bill. No poetry reading nor bid chirping. If they focused on the merits of the bill or lack thereof, we’d see more progress provided any lie could be debunked to keep both sides honest. Dems obstructed banking reform in 2002 and 2005 with lies about racism while they pretended the gop wanted to kill the housing market. Lies and scare tactics only divide politicians on issues, as well bad bills can be killed faster by focusing debate. While I support free speech, I do not support nonsense during filibuster. The house and senate should be run more like board room meeting with professional conduct and respect for truth.

Looks like Reid has given up already.

The filibuster is an important tool that the left was very much willing to use while they were in power. Now that they will not be able to hold a clear majority for the next 2 (probably many more) years they want to change the rules. In many ways the Democrat party can be compared to a bunch of little kids on the playground; name calling, blaming others for what they do wrong, and changing the rules in the middle of the game when losing. If anyone wants to get a good idea of just what poor shape the left is in, look at what they are trying to do in order to maintain some power in the years to come.

DF

www.notadriveby.comd

Spiral will champion now.

I would be very interested in knowing which senators voted in favor of destroying the core of the senate.
Who of the twelve will be coming up for re-election in 2012, etc….

I invite our esteemed weepers and moaners on the left to ponder why Senators were originally chosen in and by the various State legislatures. Perhaps that will give them a clue as to what the Founding Fathers had in mind for the Senate when they fashioned it.

on this issue. So, even Dems. see the problem with capricious rules changes and maybe envision the difficulties after 2012 when Dems. may be in the minority again.

Not even the Democrats are all that short sided that they don’t remember they will one day be in the minority again.

The Senate is supposed to be a deliberative body, and provide som adult supervision for the more radical swings of the House. That is why Senators represent the States, not the population directly. That is why the Senate is a continuing body with overlapping 6-year terms.

Major legislation SHOULD have broad support – both population-wise and geographic. We don’t need a better way for a minor swing in sentiment to lead to wide swings in policy.

In reality, this is a win for the PEOPLE.

Human Events’ article on this subject mentioned a tactic that I had not heard even once was in play, not even on conservative blogs. I’m wondering why not.

“In return, Reid agreed to be less active in filling up the amendment tree to block out all Republican amendments. The amendment tree refers to the process of putting amendments on a bill as it goes through the legislation process. The Majority Leader has the power to add the maximum amount of amendments to the tree, which locks out any amendments by the minority party.

“Over the past two years, Reid has used his power to fill up the amendment tree drastically more often than had been done in the past.

“The Majority Leader used that power to cut off all amendments and debate 44 times. That’s more than the last 6 majority leaders combined,” said Sen. Alexander on the floor.”

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41443

Harry Reid was acting the tyrant, just like Nancy Pelosi, and gaming parliamentary procedure to keep Republicans from having any voice in bills on the floor.

The very center of Republican messaging needs to be to lock into the memories of Americans what Democrats did when they thought they had all the power. What surfaced was unmasked tyranny. These people cannot be trusted with power; they intend domination. We need to say so: “Remember what Democrats do when they think they’re in control.

but it also has the effect of protecting the majority from doing stupid things.

The Senate has always been the cool down for rash legislation. Even with the 17th divesting Senators from their states (more beholden to the people/benefactors than the state gov’t), the ability of a Senator to slow/stop the majority is GOOD and must be preserved.

Reid is a rattlesnake
can we just get along ?
hell no, finish him off
investigate how he stole the election

The filibuster rule has provided advantages to the Left.

Social Security had no problem overcoming the filibuster. But medical liabiilty reform has been blocked by the filibuster.

Medicare had no problem overcoming the filibuster. But drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Reserve was blocked by the filibuster.

Liberal nominees to the federal courts have no problem overcomeing the filibuster. But conservative judicial nominees like Miguel Estrada and Carolyn Kuhl get defeated by the filibsuter.

Not only that, the US Constitution clearly gives the majority of the US Senate the power to write its own rules and the US Constitution intended the US Senate to operate on a majority basis.

It looks like we as a country have decided that preserving the right of the Left to block the conservative agenda is more important that advancing the cause of freedom.

It doesn’t surprise me that some Democrats voted against doing away with the filibuster. Should they again become the minority in the Senate in 2012, they may need it. By voting to do away with it they would, in the long run, end up kicking themselves.

As Fox News and several conservative talk show hosts have pointed out, Republicans have also used it very effectively in the past.

The filibuster works both ways.

I agree that the “Senate is actually a much better institution because of the filibuster.” However, the filibuster is unconstitutional when the Senate acts under the “appointments clause” of Article II, Section 2, clause 2:

http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2005/05/framers-had-nukes.html

Which means it’s fine for ordinary law-making, but not for judicial or cabinet nominations.