August 27th, 2015

Democrats plan to filibuster Iran deal vote

It’s been clear for quite some time that the anti-Iran-deal forces will not get enough votes to override an inevitable presidential veto. But now it seems that Obama’s Democratic deal-supporters may have enough votes in the Senate (all they need is 41) to block cloture and therefore stop any vote from happening in the first place.

What a bunch:

Democrats have begun plans to wield the power of the filibuster as a show of strength should things start sliding downhill, prompting those opposed to the deal to cry foul:

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) spoke to two undecided Democrats on Tuesday about the deal. He said he doesn’t believe he should put his thumb on the scale to counter the White House, but when he saw Reid say that he is trying to build a filibuster, his response was: “Are you kidding me?”

“Is that where they really want to be? Do they really want to vote to block consideration of … probably the biggest foreign policy endeavor?” Corker said in an interview. “Do they want to be in a place where they voted to keep from going to the substance [of the Iran debate]?”

The White House may be optimistic, but the fact that their last best hope may be to simply prevent discussion and debate shows just how low they’ve sunk in their desire to capitulate to the possibility of a nuclear Iran.

Actually, I think it doesn’t even begin to show how low they’ve sunk.

The point, however, is this: Obama and many Democrats seem determined to undermine the future of this country, Israel, and most probably the world in protecting and enabling Obama’s destructive foreign policy. What’s more, this shows still another reason that the Corker-Menendez bill was not an error. In addition to all the previously-mentioned reasons, there is the additional one that, if the Democrats can muster 41 votes to block the vote of disapproval, they certainly could (and would) have mustered 41 votes to block any vote on the Iran deal as a treaty. Corker-Menendez gave them at least the possibility of another tool, although both tools would be rendered inoperative if the Democrats can come up with the 41 votes.

“Unprecedented” is an overused word lately. But this sort of thing is unprecedented—in the US.

You know, this might just be the moment to end the filibuster/cloture rule on whatever category of bills this one would fall into. Even though it would be mostly a show vote, because Obama would undoubtedly veto the bill, this needs to be voted on.

By the way, these numbers also show why although impeachment might be successful, a conviction in the Senate would never occur, because that would require 67 senators to vote “guilty.”

31 Responses to “Democrats plan to filibuster Iran deal vote”

  1. matthew49 Says:

    The filibuster should just be ended. There is no constitutional requirement for it and though its been a traditional procedural rule for the Senate, throughout our history it has been mostly used for bad purposes. If abolishing the filibuster allows some bad legislation to get through that otherwise wouldn’t have, at least their repeal won’t be prevented by a filibuster.

  2. Artfldgr Says:

    they havent sunk low, they are the same dirty players from the hayes tilden elections and so on. i said one of the values of reading the old books of that time and period is that you find out the democrats were the same nasty self serving lying players they are today.. nothing much has changed in tactics or actions… just different subjects or focal points for the same games.

    you really should read that hayes tilden book i kept recommending… big eye opener, and free…

    dont worry… i know no one will…

    if they havent in near 10 years, they are not going to wake up and do it now..

  3. Oblio Says:

    Call their bluff. Make them filibuster old school by speaking continuously. It would make gripping and edifying political theater. Some of them would physically crack under the strain. It might even penetrate LIV consciousness. I would not want to be one of the Senators who made myself a poster boy for the Iran deal.

  4. Artfldgr Says:

    Obama and many Democrats seem determined to undermine the future of this country, Israel, and most probably the world in protecting and enabling Obama’s destructive foreign policy.

    Which country do they worship, have followed, been caught doing favors for, and have been screwed by that would benefit from the results?

    Cui Bono?

    one country will benefit the most, has dealings with iran that it benefits, destbilization benefits, a war would benefit, and so on and so forth.

    So its not the dems, its the dems masters.

  5. Cornhead Says:

    I want to hear the likes of Al Franken filibuster this bill on the floor.

  6. Paul in Boston Says:

    I’ve long thought that only a fool would trust the Democratic Party with the defense of the Nation or the public safety at home. This is just one more example, though probably the most dangerous in my lifetime. Since Nixon won the Presidency in 1968 they have put their own partisanship and accumulation of power above any other interest without regard for the consequences.

  7. K-E Says:

    Let them do it. If they want to ride into the history books as the ones who bowed to Iran, then so be it. Until Obama is gone from office really nothing can be done. Counting down the days until that happens…I’m excited for what a post-Obama presidency will bring.

  8. expat Says:

    I wish people would do some demos against the sell-out senators. A good poster would be, “Reid and Obama will be gone in a year and a half. WE WON’T.”

  9. Avi Says:

    August 27th, 2015 at 3:48 pm
    I want to hear the likes of Al Franken filibuster this bill on the floor.

    Herr Frankens wife and children aren’t Jewish. You think he cares about Israel?

  10. wendy Says:

    Democrats are being bought by Iran….

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/iran_is_buying_democrat_congress_they_already_bought_kerry_clinton_and_biden.html

  11. Geoffrey Britain Says:

    “Obama and many Democrats seem determined to undermine the future of this country, Israel, and most probably the world in protecting and enabling Obama’s destructive foreign policy.” neo

    “seem determined”?

    We ALL know the truth. Traitors ALL.

    “Traitor Senators Took Money from Iran Lobby, Back Iran Nukes”

    Karin McQuillan @ American Thinker summarizes;

    “Frontpage Magazine has published a bombshell report that has been met with total silence by the media. Daniel Greenfield’s piece is entitled “Traitor Senators Took Money from Iran Lobby, Back Iran Nukes.”

    Our politicians bought by Iran include not just a list of senators and congressmen about to vote on the Iran deal. Recipients of Iran’s largess for their campaigns include President Obama, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton.

    “Both of Obama’s secretaries of state were involved in Iran Lobby cash controversies, as was his vice president and his former secretary of defense. Obama was also the beneficiary of sizable donations from the Iran Lobby.”

    Iranian-American activists against the mullahs’ regime in Iran correctly described IAPAC as a “lobby group for a terrorist regime.”

  12. Ymarsakar Says:

    “Treason does not prosper. For when it prospers, non dare call it treason.”

    Course that was the age before insurgents based on the internet came around.

  13. Ymarsakar Says:

    So who were the spineless weaklings that said we should forgive Democrats again? They’re just innocent misguided people, right. Right.

  14. parker Says:

    I agree with GB, taking money from the iranians is an act of treason. They will never face the firing squad, but in a sane and lawful society that would be their fate. The political class, with a few exceptions, protect one another across the aisles. Forget about OWS, its time to OWDC. Little can be done until those inside the beltway have been purged and exiled. GITMO would be a fitting location.

  15. DNW Says:

    matthew49 Says:
    August 27th, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    The filibuster should just be ended. There is no constitutional requirement for it and though its been a traditional procedural rule for the Senate, throughout our history it has been mostly used for bad purposes. If abolishing the filibuster allows some bad legislation to get through that otherwise wouldn’t have, at least their repeal won’t be prevented by a filibuster.

    Well, we could always go to the extreme of changing the rules to the extent of actually requiring that the sons-of-bitches get up and hold the floor to speak.

    That way these gliding twits could filibuster to their simpering little hearts’ content – if their stents and dyed and blow dried comb-overs could stand the strain of actually taking to the floor, that is.

    And who knows, after 3 days of doing nothing but talking, instead of doing nothing whatsoever at all, those doing the filibustering might just collapse, or the Senate affair gain enough public attention to make a political difference.

    If that would not be too too radical.

    After all, it may be that they see the comity and collegiality of the Senate as more important than the survival of the republic.

    Who really knows what these monkeys are doing in the cloakroom or gym.

  16. AMartel Says:

    Keep digging, Dems! You’re gonna need a lot of holes to bury all the people who will die for your personal profit and political legacy.

  17. Matt_SE Says:

    There exists a moral imperative to show Democrats why we had Senatorial collegiality to begin with.
    They must be punished for their insolence.

  18. Phi Dayton Says:

    You seemed to be confused. If they filibustered a treaty vote it couldn’t get the necessary votes to become a treaty.

  19. Orson Says:

    ” …these numbers also show why although impeachment might be successful, a conviction in the Senate would never occur, because that would require 67 senators to vote ‘guilty.’ ”

    Perhaps. But this is a conjecture BEFORE a trial – and before an actual hearing of the grounds, the Constitutional grounds, for the action.

    I say let those opposed to the Rule of Law and our Constitution be on record to betray – and fail to defend it.

  20. Jimmy J. Says:

    Now is the time to swamp the Democrat Senators with phone calls against the deal.

    Yesterday the TEA Party visited 200 Congressional offices nationwide with protests against the deal. They are staging a protest of the deal in DC on September 9th. Cruz will be speaking there and Trump has promised to join them.

    Only citizen outrage can make a difference.

    My phone message to my Senators: “Can you live with your conscience when the money Iran gets will lead to a much stronger, more dangerous rogue nation and the deaths of thousands of innocent Israelis?”
    How to phone your Senators – You may phone the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request. You can also find your Senator’s local offices in the phone book under U.S. Federal Government listings.

    Light up their DC or their State switchboards. Just do it!

  21. neo-neocon Says:

    Phi Dayton:

    No, not confused.

    It goes like this: the treaty vote would be a vote of no consequence no matter how it went, except its only value would be as theater. That’s because the Iran deal would not be considered a treaty by Obama or by the courts if challenged. This sort of deal has, for decades, not been considered a treaty but instead is done by executive agreement, which Congress can agree or disagree with but which does NOT require 2/3 Senate approval as a treaty.

    So, the only thing to be gained from voting on it as a treaty and failing to approve (it not only wouldn’t get 2/3 approval, it probably would just get around 2/5 approval) is to show what Congress thinks of it. The vote would have no legal force.

    However, the Democrats wouldn’t want that vote to happen, because it would make Obama look bad. That’s why the Republicans should have been intent on having that vote anyway, by the way. So, if the Republicans had tried to vote on the deal as though it were a treaty—which they can still try to do if they wanted to (although they don’t seem to want to)—the Democrats would want to block that vote and avoid the embarrassment for Obama. They also would want to avoid having their names on a “yes” vote to approve it as a treaty; that’s another reason they’d want to block a vote.

    Therefore, if they had at least 41 votes to stop cloture and block a vote on the bill as a treaty, they would do so. I believe they have those votes, although I don’t think the GOP leaders are even going to try to have that vote.

  22. blert Says:

    I would’ve thought that Munich I would’ve put democratic politicians forever in dread of Munich II. ( aka Vienna I )

    We’ll just take the Nazi connection to both cities to be mere coincidence.

    Hedy Lamarr must be spinning in her grave.

  23. Fred Says:

    Is it a treaty or agreement?

    Is this with US or UN ?
    Why Should this matter whith rough state put on the shulder of US

  24. Ymarsakar Says:

    Only citizen outrage can make a difference.

    Last time the citizens got outraged and 1 million man marched to DC, the Left’s Active Measure branches nuked them.

  25. Phi Dayton Says:

    I still don’t understand your view on the treaty. The Rs wouldn’t even have to bring it up for a ratification vote. If they don’t bring it up for a vote it isn’t a treaty. And the Rs should have stopped there and said let it be known that this is not a treaty of the united states and shall be voided as soon as an R becomes President. Exactly like Carly Fiorina says it should be done.

  26. neo-neocon Says:

    Phi Dayton:

    They passed Corker-Menendez because they wanted to have some input about the sanctions. Corker-Menendez gave them a different pathway, one that had at least the possibility of a bilateral demand by Congress to continue the sanctions. After all, the sanctions had been established by Congress in the first place and Obama should have needed their approval to lift them. However, they knew he wasn’t going to ask for that approval; he was going to do it without them, and they wanted to reinstate their right to approve or disapprove of his lifting sanctions.

    Back when the original Corker-Menendez bill was being debated and voted on, Corker said:

    We all want to make sure the administration doesn’t rush into a bad deal with Iran, and without the restrictions on the president in our veto-proof bill, he would have a free hand to immediately relieve all sanctions on Iran before Congress could do anything to stop him,” Corker told me.

    Not bringing the deal up for a vote at all allows it to be voided by a new president as an executive agreement rather than a treaty. But the same thing is true of voting under Corker-Menendez to continue sanctions. Both options would allow a later president to void the deal, since it’s just an executive agreement.

    However, the fear was (and still is) that without Corker-Menendez, if they just failed to vote to either approve or disapprove of the deal as a treaty, and Obama went ahead and suspended sanctions, then by the time a new president was sworn in and tried to void the deal, sanctions would be impossible to reinstate. It would be too late. So they wanted to at least have a chance to prevent that.

    As I said, none of it was ever going to work because they just didn’t have enough Democratic support.

  27. Phi Dayton Says:

    Oh vey. I understand how you view this. But it is so convoluted and in the end achieves nothing. The answer is usually always the simple one. The simple one is the Rs saying that the agreement will not become the law of the land because Congress will not approve it as a treaty. And when Rs get in they will reimpose sanctions and close the US banking system to anyone doing business with Iran. It’s also good politics (think Florida).

  28. Phi Dayton Says:

    One last thought. It seems to me that C-M also undercuts an argument in Federal court that the agreement is a treaty and therefore can not be implemented without Congressional approval. Keep in mind that there is a court in Texas that is holding up the President’s executive order on immigration because it really amounts to a new interpretation of the law which requires a regulatory process, there would have been a shot of a court saying the agreement is a treaty, but for C-M.

  29. neo-neocon Says:

    Phi Dayton:

    I have no idea why you call my explanation convoluted. It’s not all that hard to follow.

    And there is almost no chance any court would have called it a treaty, and in the extremely unlikely event that the court did call it a treaty there’s no way a court could it have made that stick. The precedent ever since FDR is for similar agreements to be dealt with in ways other than calling them a treaty.

    As far back as 1954 (perhaps even earlier) you can find law articles on the subject such as this one. It makes it clear that in order for Congress to vote on an agreement as though it’s a treaty, the president needs to submit it to the vote as such. Obama would have never done that. What’s more:

    It would seem, therefore, that the President, in the final analysis, has the last say concerning the existence or non-existence of treaty…

    …[U]nder [FDR], [executive agreements] mushroomed in number to a point where they threatened to replace treaties as the basis for American foreign policy. In the famous case of United States v. Pink, decided in 1942, the Litvinov “executive” agreement of 1933 was held to be “final and conclusive on the courts” insofar as Soviet recognition had there been accorded.

    There’s much much more, both in earlier years and later ones, written on the subject and to the same effect. There is virtually no chance it would have been called a treaty by the Court, and even if it had the only remedy would be impeachment/conviction of Obama, which was never going to happen.

  30. Phi Dayton Says:

    The point is that Congress should not have touched this then. If the President can enter into an agreement unilaterally then let him own it without Congress becoming involved. Congress should say we have not approved it, it is not the law of the land, and the Rs will repeal it. You still don’t explain what was gained by C-M. Other then the President being able to say it went through the Congressional process agreed to by Congress.

  31. neo-neocon Says:

    Phi Dayton:

    I have explained what they thought they were gaining. I’ll repeat it.

    They passed Corker-Menendez because they wanted to have some input about the sanctions. Corker-Menendez gave them a different pathway, one that had at least the possibility of a bilateral demand by Congress to continue the sanctions. After all, the sanctions had been established by Congress in the first place and Obama should have needed their approval to lift them.

    Corker-Menendez passed almost unanimously. They thought it was at least a possibility that they could also get enough votes post-Iran-deal to continue sanctions and override Obama’s veto. That would at least give them some power to stop him from lifting sanctions without consulting them; prior to that they had none.

    Was it realistic that they ever would succeed? I don’t think so, but it was at least a realistic possibility, one that was underlined by the overwhelming numbers who voted for Corker-Menendez. I think they were fooling themselves into thinking that enough Democrats might, like Schumer, come along with them to be able to override an Obama veto. It’s actually still theoretically possible.

    With Corker-Menendez they are nearly powerless. Without it, they are completely powerless. That’s what happens when you have the combination of a tyrant (Obama) and a weak Congress, many of whose members are without integrity.

About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge