How Senate Dems bungled the filibuster thing

[BlueStreak]

Interesting article in TPM today
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/chart-senate-democrats-filibuster-nuclear-option

Basically it argues that "They had to do it, but it sets a precedent".

It did not have to be this way. This is indeed a horrible precedent. It says that the Majority leader can change the rules any time he wants to (and can get 49 other votes). That is a very bad idea. And what is tragic is that it didn't have to be this way. They had their opportunity to do this correctly last January, when the new Senate was seated. That would not have been a bad precedent, not a precedent at all. And it would not have left the door open for Republicans to make really arbitrary rules changes at the drop of a hat in the future.

We don't know if Reid was too cowardly in January or if it was a case where he couldn't get enough votes because of the cowards in his caucus. What we do know is that absolutely nothing changed from January to November. The Republicans obstructed everything before and they obstructed everything after. So how is it they could do this in the sleaziest possible way in November, but couldn't find the courage to do it properly last January?

[pangaia]

1. I don't understand the difference between doing it now and last January.

Not questioning your statement, just my ignorance.

[okaawhatever]

6. In January, the beginning of the legislative session, rules are created for the forthcoming congress

Usually the motion is to adopt the previous years rules. He's saying it should have been done when the rules for the year were laid out.

[BlueStreak]

8. The Constitution calls for the Senate to set its rules.

The precedent is that this is done at the start of each session.

See http://www.tomudall.senate.gov/files/documents/UdallTheConstitutionalOptionFAQs.pdf

[pangaia]

9. Thanks.

There are so many people here who know so much more than I do.
What a great place to learn.

[geek tragedy]

2. I don't think it could have happened any other way.

This sort of change would have to be a measure of last resort, and it's hard to make that argument upon the seating of a new session.

[tularetom]

3. The rules change in January would only have applied to this congress

It would have to be reenacted at the start of the next congress anyway.

So I'm not really sure what the difference is.

And I don't get what was so "sleazy" about the way it was done??

[BlueStreak]

4. The Senate sets its rules at the start of each Congress. This is the proper way to do it.

Changing the rules on the fly with a simple majority is chickenshit and will come back to bite us. The next time there is a Republican majority, they can threaten to change any rules any time they don't like how things are going.

[tularetom]

10. Fiddlesticks! The next time there's a repub majority they'll change the rule anyway

If republicans win a senate majority in the next congress they can change it back. But if they win a majority they won't want to change it back. They don't give a rats ass about the proper way to do it.

If the Democrats retain a senate majority they can keep this rule in effect.

I'm sorry I fail to see the distinction between doing it in January and doing it now.

[BlueStreak]

12. They did not do so the last time, but they threatened.

I'm just saying this all could have been done in January. That would be the proper way to do it, and that would have put these appointees in place almost one year earlier in some cases. Why did we have to go all of 2013 without an EPA director, for example?

[randome]

14. You already said he didn't have the votes in January for this.

So how could this have been done then?

Methinks you worry too much.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Mass]

5. I wished they had done it in January, but it does not matter.

The only problem in doing this this way is that it shows the Democrats have lost any belief they could have had to govern by the regular process.

Any very small hope it could have occurred is now gone. It does not matter except because the GOP has been claiming for a long time that Obama is circumventing Congress (and they are partly correct, even though it is the fault of the GOP) and this adds another step to their argument.

[Tigress DEM]

7. I think the whole SHUTDOWN issue takes sleazy off the table.

It's pretty obvious that their side is only using filibuster to make laws from the minority vantage point. They didn't care how much damage they caused.

NOW there is concrete evidence that the world has seen - proof that the filibuster had to go.

YOU go to Congress.

YOU face the jerks there.

THEN you have a right to judge anyone actively in the trenches fighting for our rights when they do what needs to be done.

Hold their feet to the fire, get better results, sure. BUT let's not call it sleazy. That is low and uncalled for and is fodder for the other side.

[Orsino]

11. Sets a precedent?

It was already in the rules, and a hypothetical majority leader McConnell wouldn't have hesitated nearly as long before using it.

[BlueStreak]

13. When was the last time Senate rules were changed mid-session with a simple majority?

[lame54]

15. I don't find it sleazy at all...

i find it overdue