Friday, December 24, 2010

"Kill the Filibuster" Rolling in (D) Controlled Senate

RedState explains the machinations--which, for such slime as Durbin is a 180-degree reverse of his pre-2004 position (but nevermind the 'for it before I was against it' Kerryism.)

The proposal to kill the filibuster may well take effect in January, which raises a question: What's the Hurry?

Liberals are going to destroy the tradition of extended debate and a free amendment process in the Senate if they can pull off this procedural coup. They want to set a precedent that the Senate can toss aside the rules with a simple majority vote. Liberals will regret this power grab if Republicans take over the Senate and Presidency in 2013, yet they seem so intent on short term gain that they don’t care about the long term consequences for members of the minority party.

So what makes this a 'do-it-NOW' issue?

One reason is obvious:

They are ... setting the table to make it easier to sieze control of the Supreme Court if any of the conservative leaning members decide to retire.

Beyond that, of course, is the fact that the filibuster can prevent The Agenda--Totalitarianism, (or Statism)--from being enacted. Control of SCOTUS is important, as FDR knew. But so is control of House initiatives, especially those which will rein in such as Sibelius' ObamaCare regs, or Browner's EPA regs, or Incompetanto's TSA thuggery.

This is not a matter of 'efficiency.'

It is a rear-guard, but critical, means of taking or retaining control.

So, as we've counseled before:



Anonymous said...

So, you say beware of the supposed Democratic power grab, then say well, if the Republicans get control, they can advantage of that procedural change as well.
As if their agenda is any better and wiil neglect to abuse that change as well!

neomom said...

Its more than just SCOTUS... take a look at all the District and Circuit court judges that were blocked in the 111th.

Like Loophole Louie. Or the dude that was using mental disease as a reason to reduce the sentences of sexual sadists. Or the dude that thought we should subvert our laws for international law.

The statists don't care if they end up on the other side of this in a couple of years - they know the damage done now will be far lasting... Just like Nancy was more than happy to sacrifice 60+ of her members for ObamaCare.

Conservatives would be wise to bone up on these long-view tactics and stop being so damned squeamish to use them.

That said. Scott Walker and the legislature have about 18 months to unravel a whole lot of Doyle damage and they had better stay firm in their convictions.

Display Name said...

Really, Neomom? What did Louis Butler do to deserve "Loophole Louie"?