Let’s do away with the filibuster, saith the Democrats
This is exactly what I’ve been anticipating, ever since I realized that the Senate would probably remain in Democrat hands.
William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection says not to worry. But I’m hardly as sanguine as he on the possibilities for control of both houses in 2012, or what Republicans would do if they had it.
As I wrote before, there’s always the House.
Any circumventing of the filibuster this way is short-sighted. What one party can do to become the overbearing majority, another can do just as well. But I think the philosophy is to grab as much power as you can while you can, because the other party will do the same when it can.
But I’m hardly as sanguine as he on the possibilities for control of both houses in 2012, or what Republicans would do if they had it.
Indeed. At a time when the government is far too big and has way too much power (and “needs” more & more), anything that impedes the expansion of that power is likely to do more good than harm. That’s true whether Democrats, RINOs, or Big Government Conservatives are in the majority.
It would be really nice if both major parties could say, “let’s be nice. You help us pass the bills we like, and we’ll help you pass the bills you like. Promise not to filibuster us, and we’ll promise not to filibuster you.”
But it doesn’t work that way. And the founding fathers didn’t expect it to work that way; they expected that we’d have human beings, not angels, to govern us, and that human beings crave power. That’s why they set up limited government, and three competing branches of government to keep it that way.
We’ve been seeing all sorts of power plays by the Democrats over the past few years, particularly since President Obama took office. Denying the need for bipartisanship by saying “I won”. Passing massive bills, against the will of the voters, without a single Republican vote. And now they speak of the need for bipartisanship, and a desire to weaken the filibuster (given that filibusters would work to Republicans’ benefit, for now).
I’m with Neo. The system is set up to abide by “majority rules”… but to also give the minority power a voice, and the ability to stop bad law in its tracks if it’s important enough.
Or, to put it another way — the filibuster is a tool. It’s up to those wielding the tool to make sure it’s used for good and not for evil. The tool itself is just a tool, nothing more, and we won’t do away with bad intentions by weakening the tool.
Mind you, Republicans are just as subject to this silliness as Democrats. We occasionally hear well-intentioned idiots of both parties trying to dismantle the Electoral College, too, mostly on the grounds that they don’t understand it. In both cases, we have an attempt by the founding fathers to save us from an overdose of democracy, the so-called “tyranny of the majority”… which is why we still consider ourselves a republic, not a democracy.
The abovementioned well-intentioned idiots usually rail against the filibuster, and against the electoral college, saying that they’re anti-democratic. Well, yes, they are, and that’s the idea! Under a pure democracy, it would be perfectly legal for a 51% majority to order the 49% minority banished, or tortured, or taxed to death. The filibuster protects us from that. Under a pure democracy, we could have a very close Presidential election that requires a country-wide recount (I shudder just to contemplate it!); the electoral college protects us from that.
The founding fathers knew all about pure democracies, and they were determined to avoid its seductions and dangers. It would be foolhardy in the extreme for us to throw away the tools they’ve given us.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
I would have titled that essay “Let’s have the nuclear option, say the Democrats.” But that’s just me.
Actually, now that I think about it, I would actually prefer “The Oliver Cromwell Option…”
“Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
“In the name of God, go!”
http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/american_studies/oliver_cromwell_would_hav.php
If the democrats held the house or even were within a few votes, say 220r -215d, then perhaps I’d believe that the Senate would end the filibuster. Given the overwhelming dominance of the republicans in the house, this would be a suicidal move. While it might make judicial appointments easier, they get little benefit. The cost should they lose the Senate in 2012, would be enormous.
Consider the end product of the republicans controlling both houses and the presidency with no filibuster to restrain the Senate. While I might like it, the left would see the utter destruction of all their sacred cows. For all the spin, they know that they at least for now have lost the majority of voters. They have to make this bet in 3? weeks. Perhaps they are that arrogant, but somehow I think that the party will not want to make that bet.
They can do a lot of damage in two years, especially if they are able to ram through lots of leftist judges. The left would control the judicial branch for decades even if the Republicans sweep in 2012. Then they would be in a position to throw all kinds of roadblocks in the path of Republican efforts to roll back Obama’s “fundamental transformation”.
A distressing history is the history of our early republic when principles and truths by one side claimed as inviolate were later abandoned.
The one constant seems to be the intransigence of man.
One saving grace: Just like matter gains more “weight” as it accelerates and reaches a limit when no more force will produce more velocity, so, hopefully, there is a critical limit to man’s stupidity.
If man could fly, he would fly like a beetle.
Curtis Says:
December 23rd, 2010 at 7:46 pm
I don’t think that limit has been discovered yet. And I don’t expect to find it in the next few years.
Fasten your seat belt.
Of course knowing the Democrats, they’ll dismantle the filibuster when they’re in the majority but find a way to reinstate it when they’re the minority again. I too, have a bad feeling about this. Murkowski, Snowe, Collins, Brown and the other RINOS will gladly lay down and spread their legs for a committee assignment or two.
Reflect on these prescient words by Neo on 7/27/2010:
“There are no plans to push unpopular bills through in a lame duck session, no plans at all, says Democrat Chris Van Hollen of Maryland.
Who’s he? An assistant to Speaker Pelosi. Do you trust him to be telling the truth–or to even know the truth? I don’t.”
Wretched vermin. We know that, but still, to be reminded how blithely they lie….
>>Wretched vermin. We know that, but still, to be reminded how blithely they lie….>>
Prior to 9/11, I respected islam as a religion different from but with mostly the same desired ends as Christianity and Judaism. After 9/11, I learned more and changed my mind. One of the things that affected me most was learning about the practice of taqiyya – lying to the “infidel” about something that would affect muslims favorably or unfavorably. Not only is it “forgiven” but it is considered a duty. In other words, lying is a _good_ thing if it benefits muslims. Somehow, that affected me really deeply. I think it was because even when you know something like that intellectually, you can’t appreciate it until you know it “emotionally”. You cannot trust what is being said – how can you have any dealings with someone you simply cannot believe?
Now I’m dealing with something of the same thing with Liberals – and it’s even worse because we theoretically come from the same origins. I see it as the beginning of a deep seated conflict – which may or may not lead to violence.
Very scary.
with thanks for providing valuable information about the topic. I am a fan on your website. Keep up favorable job.