Conservatives are very much opposed to “rule by the mob” and the “tyranny of the majority.” We conservatives don’t believe that democracy is an unconditionally a positive influence on society since democracy is basically “two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for dinner.” A 50 percent plus one majority should not be able to take away our basic rights.
But theory sometimes clashes dramatically with reality, at least in some cases. Conservatives currently look at the transplanted Wisconsin and Indiana legislators with a combination of dismay and anger. A Wisconsin Republican or Indiana Republican could justifiably say, “We won the 2010 election. But we can’t pass our agenda without minimal cooperation from Democrats. If winning elections isn’t enough for us Republicans to pass our agenda, when will be able to enact our agenda?”
Also, we could look back to the middle portion of the George W. Bush administration. In the 2003-2004 Senate, the Democrats only had a minority of 49 Senate seats. Yet, these Democrats were able to use the Senate filibuster rule, which requires 3/5ths of all US Senators “chosen and sworn” to end debate, to defeat 10 conservative nominees for the US federal court of appeals. In the 2004 elections, not only did President Bush get reelected; the GOP also gained a net of 4 US Senate seats, obtaining a 55 to 45 seat majority. Yet still, there was concern among Republicans that the Democrat Senators would continue their filibustering ways against conservative judicial nominees, since the Democrats still had more than the 41 Senators needed to block any judicial nominee from receiving a confirmation floor vote. To accurately recount the GOP position on the filibuster, however, most Republicans wanted to retain the filibuster rule for legislative items while eliminating the judicial filibuster option.
When the Republicans lost control over the US Senate and the US House in the 2006 elections, and especially after Obama was elected president in 2008, Republicans looked at the filibuster as the one tool they could use to prevent the United States from becoming Argentina. The filibuster rule didn’t prevent the enactment of the stimulus plan and the confirmation of Sotomayor and Kagan. Nor did the filibuster rule prevent the enactment of Obamacare. This is partially due to the party switch of Senator Arlen Specter, which gave the Democrats 60 Senate seats.
Yet as we watch Democrat legislators crossing state lines in order to stop the Republican agenda, it is time we examined the whole issue of the minority veto and supermajority requirements. Is it a good idea to require “bi-partisanship” by requiring supermajorities in order to conduct legislative business? Or would our country be better off if both the Republican and Democrat parties were able to enact their agenda without the consent of the other political party? Should the GOP be required to receive the consent of the Barbara Boxers of the world in order to enact the conservative agenda? Should the Democrats be required to receive the consent of the Jim DeMints of the world in order to enact the socialist agenda?
This is an important issue because if the GOP wins big in 2012, we can expect the Democrats do use every minority veto tool they can lay their hands on to block the conservative agenda.
Moe Lane
PG DeFreese
Victoria Coates
Daniel Horowitz
Dan Spencer
The solution is simple...
rbdwiggins (Diary) Friday, February 25th at 8:33AM EST (link)and it does not include, under any circumstance, ending the Filibuster (Rule XXII) in the US Senate.
“…we can expect the Democrats do use every minority veto tool they can lay their hands on to block the conservative agenda.”
Elections have consequences, and failing to cement a clear, overwhelming mandate and working majority in 2012, the mission of every conservative and Tea Party activist across this great nation will be to elect a filibuster-proof conservative majority to the US Senate and a super-majority to the House of Representatives in 2014.
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan
Minority vetos guarantee bad government because
Spiral (Diary) Friday, February 25th at 4:54PM EST (link)the minority, being upset that it is out of power, wants things to go wrong. Thus, whenever the majority party proposes an agenda item that could improve the circumstances of the state or nation, the minority party can be expected to block this agenda.
This is why the Framers of the US Constitution only required a supermajority 2/3rds vote on very specific items, such as over-riding a presidential veto and a few other items.
When the Republicans give the Democrats a veto power over their agenda after conservative grass roots activists have worked tirelessly to defeat Democrats at the voting booth, the result is the demoralization of the conservative grass roots activists.
The attitude is, “We worked hard to defeat the Socialist Democrat at the voting booth. But now the Republicans, who we worked hard for, are saying that they will not proceed without the agreement of the Socialist Democrats.”
Republicans never say this in so many words. But when they bow to the filibuster instead of the US Constitution, they make clear that they, contrary to their campaign rhetoric, have no interest in enacting the conservative agenda.
You can’t get 60 votes for the conservative agenda. Clarence Thomas only got 52 votes for confirmation to the US Supreme Court. Samuel Alito got only 58 votes for confirmation.
Several conservative judicial nominees did not even get an up or down vote on the Senate floor, but were defeated by the filibuster rule.
Anyone who says that they support the consrvative agenda but also support the right of 41 Democrat US Senators to block the conservative agenda is contradicting themselves.
At least that is my opinion.
The Obama Bread Lines
The Republicans didn't 'give' the Democrats veto power...
rbdwiggins (Diary) Saturday, February 26th at 9:58AM EST (link)The voters of those respective states did. Simply stated: Republicans failed to secure a filibuster-proof majority.
In other words, the voters of those same states, for one reason or another, did not agree with the Republican agenda or trust Republicans with that much power.
It didn’t matter how ‘hard’ conservative grass-root activists worked. They failed to convince enough voters to secure a filibuster-proof Republican majority. Better luck next time. Elections have consequences.
The proper course of action is not the elimination of the filibuster. The proper course of action is the repeal of the XVII Amendment.
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.” – Ronald Reagan
Spiral: I think that the major difference here...
Moe Lane (Diary) Friday, February 25th at 10:03AM EST (link)…between a filibuster and a walkout is that the first is a (legitimatized by long usage) manipulation of the rules of the system, while the second is a rejection of the rules of the system. Filibusters are annoying when they happen to your side, yes; and the casual cynicism shown by both sides about when they’re an appropriate tactic would be funny if it weren’t so sad. But just walking out says that you don’t respect the process in the first place. Particularly the bit where elections are supposed to have consequences.
The Kim Kardashian of blogging.
Check out my blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://moelane.com/filthy-lucre-filthy-lucre/
http://twitter.com/moelane
My (combined) wish list.
I disagree Moe, and in fact I think there are lots of parallels between WI and HCR
nycenterright Friday, February 25th at 11:12AM EST (link)A walkout is not a rejection of the rules of the system. What other purpose is there to the quorum rules of the Wisconsin Senate than to prevent a simple majority from passing whatever they want? I respect the role that filibusters play in contemporary parliamentary politics, as irritating as I find them, and I respect the role that quorum rules play in the same way.
What is fascinating here is how many parallels can be drawn from this fight to the HCR fight on the floor of the senate post Scott Brown, in which you had a Democratic caucus that was just one member shy of being able to have a vote on their legislative agenda, but was faced down by an opposition caucus that, due to a poor showing in the previous election, was very heavily ideologically sorted. None of the Republicans threw in the towel, and eventually the Democrats had to resort to a more complicated parliamentary trick. Let’s see if Walker has the political will to try the same thing.
Wisconsin, Indiana and the filibustering of conservative judicial nominees shows a rules change is needed
Spiral (Diary) Friday, February 25th at 4:58PM EST (link)What the fleeing Wisconsin Democrats, fleeing Indiana Democrats and the filibustering of conservative judicial nominees have in common is this:
All three demonstrate why giving the minority a blanket veto power over the agenda of the state government or national government is a horrible idea.
It would be one thing if a supermajority requirement were limited to raising taxes. But to have a supermajority requirement for all agenda items guarantees bad government.
In the case of Wisconsin, the 3/5ths requirement is turning Wisconsin into Greece on the Great Lakes.
The Obama Bread Lines
We have a rule in Indiana.
hoosierteacher (Diary) Friday, February 25th at 5:26PM EST (link)It requires the Sgt at arms to notify the governor, with the intention of bringing the legislators back by force via the state police.
The Indiana governor has decided to ignore those rules.
“Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep” – Defoe
Can the Indiana State Police capture the Democrats in another state?
Spiral (Diary) Friday, February 25th at 5:44PM EST (link)I think it would be better to change the rules so that this nonsense isn’t necessary.
If you lose the election, tough. Try to win the next election. No more belly-aching about how democracy is nothing more or less than rule by a mob. Win the election and then govern. Get rid of all these crazy filibuster rules and supermajority requirements for a quorum.
Rewarding a political party that lost a free and fair election is an awful idea. That’s why the US Constitution only requires a simple majority to conduct business in both the US House and the US Senate. That’s why the US Constitution gives the Vice President the power to break tie votes. Because they indended the majority to rule.
There are exceptions like 2/3rds for overriding a presidential veto and other items like treaties. But those are clearly spelled out in the Constitution. And they are limited to specific circumstances and agenda items.
The next time a Republican US Senator tells you that he couldn’t confirm a conservative judicial noniminee because the Democrats filibustered him (or her), tell him that you will no longer support him because he failed to junk the filibuster. Junking the filibuster can be done at any time by a simple majority of the US Senate.
The Obama Bread Lines
No.
hoosierteacher (Diary) Friday, February 25th at 5:52PM EST (link)They don’t have jurisdiction. However, they are allowed to detain and transport a legislator if found in the state.
The protocol is for the state police (we don’t call them patrol in Indiana) to contact the other state and to request assistence. It is a formality, because to be quite honest, no state is going to involve their own officers in a dispute over the legislative rules of another state, even if both states share the same party. The matter isn’t criminal, and it isn’t even a status offense.
One small thing CAN be done (and has been done in similar cases in other states in the past). The state containing the legislators can monitor the legislators and keep tabs on them at behest of that state’s governor. If the legislator moves towards the border, the other state can be informed. Also (as happened in Oklahoma), the media can be tipped off on the location of the legislators.
“Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep” – Defoe
I agree with Moe.
hoosierteacher (Diary) Friday, February 25th at 5:24PM EST (link)Let’s use basketball as an example.
A player can foul another player to stop the clock. He is, in effect, breaking a rule to lose a free throw but stops the clock. It is an accepted strategy.
But what if a team starts losing, so they just get up and walk away? In basket ball, the team that so blatently disregards the rules (not breaks them – entirely disregards them) by getting up and walking out would be forfeit. They would lose on the spot.
In politics, a fillibuster is actually in the rules (even if it is a tactical device). The idea of office holders not showing up as a proceedural tactic is NOT endorsed by the rules, which require the Sgt. at Arms to petition the governors office for assistence (the state patrol/police).
“Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep” – Defoe
My point is that the filibuster rule is a bad rule
Spiral (Diary) Friday, February 25th at 5:37PM EST (link)because it allows those politicians whom the voters rejected at the ballot box to throw sand in the gears as other politicians attempt to enact the agenda endorsed by the voters.
If we don’t like Democracy, we can move to North Korea.
But we should support majority rule. Then we can tell the Democrats to stuff it after we win the elections, rather than have to engage in endless negotiations with them.
The Democrats used the filibuster to defeat many conservative judicial nominees. They have used the filibuster to kill school choice and drilling for oil in America. We should not put up with it.
The Framers of the US Constitution intended for the US Senate to operate by majority rule. But Vice President Aaron Burr made a mistake and deleted Senate rule. Senate rules do not trump the US Constitution.
We must quit being doormats for the Socialist Left. When we win a majority in both houses of the legislature (or Congress) and the executive branch (Governor or US President), we should simply be able to tell the Democrats to go jump in a lake or have a seat and watch us enact the conservative agenda.
Any conservative who supports blanket minority vetos isn’t truly committed to enacting the conservative agenda.
The Obama Bread Lines
We agree.
hoosierteacher (Diary) Friday, February 25th at 5:46PM EST (link)I don’t agree with fillibusters either. Still, I agree with Moe that a fillibuster is a far cry from just walking out.
I disagree with fillibustering, but senates make their own rules. No senate has provisions about how to conduct a walk out.
“Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep” – Defoe
Right. I don't agree that majority rule is rule by the mob
Spiral (Diary) Friday, February 25th at 9:51PM EST (link)People often say that majority rule is rule by the mob when their candidates lost the election.
The fact is that the majority has the right to rule, provided it rules justly, which mean the majority may not use its power to trample on the free speech rights (and other rights) of the minority.
For example, if one party wins an election, they have the right to govern. But they can not announce or pass legislation stating that future elections are cancelleed or that the minority is not allowed freedom of speech or the right to organize and plan for the next election campaign.
The 60 vote cloture requirement in the US Senate, the 3/5ths quorum requirement in the Wisconsin Senate and the 2/3rds quorum requirement in the Indiana House all fail to allow the majority to govern, regardless of whether the majority intends to govern justly or unjustly.
That’s a recipie for dysfunctional government.
The Obama Bread Lines
5 nt
aesthete (Diary) Friday, February 25th at 5:10PM EST (link)The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice – G.K. Chesterton
Elections can't have consequences when the rules say otherwise. So change the rules.
Spiral (Diary) Friday, February 25th at 5:31PM EST (link)We say that elections should have consequences. If so, why do we tolerate rules that say otherwise? Why not close the loopholes that allow Socialists, who lost at the ballot box, to continue to have public policy in a headlock?
If we got rid of the minority vetos. Got rid of the 3/5ths requirement for a quorum in the Wisconsin State Senate. Got rid of the 2/3rds requirement for a quorum in the Indiana State House. Got rid of the 3/5ths requirement for ending debate in the US Seante.
If we made those changes, we would actually have a chance at enacting a conservative agenda.
With the current rules we have the opportunity to talk about the conservative agenda endlessly, while the Socialist Democrats come up with new tactics with which to prevent the conservative agenda from becoming law.
I don’t know why so many conservatives put up with it. Many conservatives have been told that it is okay for the Democrats to use all of these obstructionist tactics because democracy is nothing more than rule by the mob and the Democrat minority is showing their opposition to majority rule.
That kind of logic or lack thereof by conservatives, who are usually logical, is going to ruin this country.
Sure. We can hope that the American voters will elect 60 Republican US Senators. But since the GOP has not had 60 US Senators in the last 70 years, I wouldn’t get my hopes up.
We would be better off if we quit the baloney about how majority rule is awful and just junked these stupid supermajority requirements. The supermajority requirements that are in the United States Constitution should remain. But the others should be junked. Then we can enact the conservative agenda.
The Obama Bread Lines