This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Reid Flip-Flops on Filibusters, and Obama (a Minority) Tells Us That Majority Rule Is Good For Us
Democrat Senator Harry Reid is now pushing to remove the filibuster from the US Senate. This is referred to as, "The Nuclear Option." He has enlisted the help of President Barack Obama in this endeavor.
Thus, we have the odd case of President Obama, a minority, telling us that Majority Rule is good for us.
Maybe not as odd is that Harry Reid did not always feel this way about the filibuster...
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): "As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect. The Senate was not established to be efficient. Sometimes the rules get in the way of efficiency. The Senate was established to make sure that minorities are protected. Majorities can always protect themselves, but minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all about. For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have protected the American people, and rightfully so. The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks. But I recognize this requirement is a tool that serves the long-term interest of the Senate and the American people and our country."
-Senator Harry Reid, Congressional Record, S.11591, 12/8/06)
h/t rwe2late
For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”
It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They
established a government so that no one person – and no single party –
could have total control.
Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.
They want to do away with Mr. Smith coming to Washington.
They want to do away with the filibuster.
They think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers.
I doubt that’s true.
-Senator Harry Reid, Floor Speech on Use of Filibuster, 2005
h/t trader1
How does the filibuster help to protect the minority?
Minority rights
Because a majority can win a vote under majority rule, it has been commonly argued that majority rule can lead to a "tyranny of the majority". Supermajoritarian rules, such as the three-fifths supermajority rule required to end a filibuster in the United States Senate, have been proposed as preventative measures of this problem. Other experts argue that this solution is questionable. Supermajority rules do not guarantee that it is a minority that will be protected by the supermajority rule; they only establish that one of two alternatives is the status quo, and privilege it against being overturned by a mere majority. To use the example of the US Senate, if a majority votes against cloture, then the filibuster will continue, even though a minority supports it. Anthony McGann argues that when there are multiple minorities and one is protected (or privileged) by the supermajority rule, there is no guarantee that the protected minority won't be one that is already privileged, and if nothing else it will be the one that has the privilege of being aligned with the status quo.[1]
Another way to safeguard against tyranny of the majority, it is argued, is to guarantee certain rights. Inalienable rights, including who can vote, which cannot be transgressed by a majority, can be decided beforehand as a separate act,[5] by charter or constitution. Thereafter, any decision that unfairly targets a minority's right could be said to be majoritarian, but would not be a legitimate example of a majority decision because it would violate the requirement for equal rights. In response, advocates of unfettered majority rule argue that because the procedure that privileges constitutional rights is generally some sort of supermajoritarian rule, this solution inherits whatever problems this rule would have. They also add the following: First, constitutional rights, being words on paper, cannot by themselves offer protection. Second, under some circumstances, the rights of one person cannot be guaranteed without making an imposition on someone else; as Anthony McGann wrote, "one man’s right to property in the antebellum South was another man's slavery". Finally, as Amartya Sen stated when presenting the liberal paradox, a proliferation of rights may make everyone worse off.[6]
The fact that Barack Obama, an ethnic minority in America, is supporting the end of the filibuster in the US Senate is a very telling sign-post on what appears to be the road to, "A tyranny of the majority."
May we have a moment of silence for The Rule of Law, Minority Rights, and the Constitutional Republic that we once had.
Plan accordingly.
»
- advertisements -
in all fairness i must point out that one of my douchebag senators (if not both- haven't seen evidence of harkin) have flip flopped as well.... Grassley- i appreciate your current stance , but this wasn't what you were screaming during bush years... that integrity thing will get you
If majority rule is not the best way then I think only landowners should decide everything. It is now Oligarchy rules. Pretty soon we will be like Mexico where twenty six families own everything.
It's called fucking Democracy - majority rules. This Filibuster is just made up shit - not in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Just like that 'I love child molesters - Hastert' rule (Remember Mark Foley?).
Get over it - just like this BULL market Tyler! BTW How's the Gold horde doing???
http://www.utrend.tv/v/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-...
Exactly.
Vote. Always. Especially in the off year elections.
Majority rule is a sure path to socialism.
Perfectly stated.
what , 80% weere against the bailouts, how did that work out?
A country run by gangsters! You people are crazy if you allow this to stand, time to remove Reid is now.
haha yeah right. why don't you draw out a plan of action and get back to us. everything we have done has been completely ineffective, and any additional, more extreme options would currently be counterproductive (read: bloody)
And by the same token, since 61% polled believe Obamacare should be repealed, so it should be done right?
So if a majority of women polled said that all men should be neutered, then I guess that's what's good for America under majority rule?
In all likelihood Reid won't keep rule change beyond 2014. I expect the Senate Judiciary branch will tee up a long line of appointees, then Reid will reverse the rule change. It will be his way of having it both ways. Don't think for a minute liberals think they will keep the Senate majority forever. But they do think they'll keep it the next four years.
We had no Republic since the Civil War started.
We had not even an attempt on equal individual rights anymore since Affirmative Action started.
And the Rule of Law... I think even the youngest here have themselves seen it dying.
"Women and minorities encouraged to apply" is no different than saying "White males discouraged from applying".
How can you solve discrimination with discrimination?
Kind of like solving debt with more debt, but that's the thought process the societal mind has degraded into.
The greater problem is not with the misguided and immoral notion of the State mandating "opportunity" and opening doors (which patronage accomplishes just as well), but rather with "protection" of inferior specimens from the erstwhile consequences of their under-performance, once that door has been opened.
I don't know how to insert images.
Demotivator Link
tagline
Bipartisanship
Liberal Definition: Republicans just need to shut the hell up and sign what I put in front of them
You need special permission from Tyler to insert images.
I'm glad; can you imagine the mess if everyone could post pictures? Yikes.
Bipartisanship is code for "meeting in the middle" to punish citizens and reward corporate donors/lobbyists.
It's all about power.
Whoever is in power wants more power.
Constitution's, rights, laws, and constituencies are inconvenience's that get in the way of more power.
Patriot Act, Supreme court stripping property rights and christening corporations "individuals", the bailouts, the N.S.A. - it is clear that we are sliding into a police state run by corporations and banks where rights and liberty exist in words only.
Recall the Senate. Secession is an answer.
Filibuster is a relic of protecting the slave states. The senate is loaded with rules to protect the ability of the minority to stop anything. The minority of the moment has chosen to use this rule to block everything that might advance the cause of the president. The filibuster remains in the rules, and will no doubt be brought back to the detriment of the people of the US, and in furtherance of the plutocrats that want to plunder society of as much as possible.
Just like the 'Hastert' rule - the Filibuster is just made up shit. Not in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Not even a law - yet it is part of the reason our country was brought to the edge of default.
Insane Bull Crap!
If the filibuster is such a terrible thing, why has no Senate ever eliminated it since 1789? You seem to believe that all that is needed for "progress" is more unrestricted government power. A little left of center are we?
And one can't help but wonder......If this truly is the "nuclear option" that been feared exactly because of the potential harm a future majority would bring, could it be that they believe that there will never be a change in majority power? Can it be that this is another chess move that also further insures that to be true, along with the NSA, IRS scandals and numerous other administrative actions all ensconcing political power?
Nothing we have seen over the last five years makes any sense unless viewed from that perspective. Creative destruction and crisis to create an inpenetrable power base. Corporate and general population dependency supported by government largess coming largely from one political group. A court system that views all anti-progress legislation as illegal. This is becoming an entrenched ideology that is blocking all constitutional means of contest. And most ominously, it is being done in the blatant and "transparent" means possible.
Look and listen closely to Reid as well as Pelosi. It is so obvious to me that they are both pod people.
Nicely done HH.
A word slowly losing it's meaning:
in·alien·ableadjective \(?)i-?n?l-y?-n?-b?l, -?n?-l?-?-n?-\
: impossible to take away or give up
From Blacks 4th. Notice that root word buried in there!
INALIENABLE. Not subject to alienation; the characteristic of those things which cannot be bought or sold or transferred from one person to another, such as rivers and public highways, and certain personal rights; e. g., liberty.
UNALIENABLE. Inalienable; incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred.
LIEN. A charge or security or incumbrance upon property.
look everyone is right - Reid gets his way but it will work against the dems when the time comes - if they lose power they will wish they had this rule but reid will be remembered for using that option...
they could move it back and create fairness but when has the senate been fair?
The senate has been neutered since - you guessed it - Caligula - when the Pretorian guard (cia/nsa back then) decided to make his uncle emporer after killing him... the Senate is just a bunch of rich aristocrats that pretend to do the bidding of the people but are really just there to legitimize the monarchy/imperial power. The pretorian guard figured out how much power they had by the use of force - this is the key to understanding where true power lies (navy & cia/nsa/fbi agencies)
The 17th Amendment is what royally screwed up the senate. Prior to it, senators were appointed by their state legislatures, and held their state at the top of their interests. Once they went to direct election, the biggest out of state donors became the primary focus.
Caligula also made his beloved horse Incitatus a Senator which I think was a brilliant move. Many believe this was proof of his madness. I disagree. Insanity isn’t the only logical explanation for such behavior. I think his treatment of Incitatus was designed to insult and humiliate senators and other elites. By bestowing a high public office on his horse, then, Caligula aimed to show his underlings that their work was so meaningless an animal could do it. If ever an opportunity arises, I hereby donate my horses as well qualified for the Senatorial role.
Miffed;-)
Sorry, but the Senate is already full to overflowing with horses asses...
And there's me thinking Obamugabe had his Caligula moment when he appointed Kerry as SofS
Wait till the majority agree that a black person (and half of one at that!) fucked it up so bad there can never be another one elected president.
WHEEEEEEEEEE
It's already agreed. Obaboon was the first and will be the last and only.
I smell a rat!
Minority v. Majority is prima facie a false dichotomy in using the singular for the former.
While majority is inherently singular, minorities are inherently plural!
Don't bother me with this now HH, I'm frantically searching for the High Priests of tax cutting, the most government shrinking, anti-Fed, real slobbering fanatical anti-abortionist types, anti-gay, anti-female, the most repugnant candidates I can find to the left.
For when there's a different simple majority thats when I'll strike...then I'll even expand the courts to form a supermajority for my lifetime, like FDR tried.
It'll be wonderful ;-)
They struck first. Let's get 'em, nmewn, when the wheel comes around and it is our turn.
us = them or spirit of the rules > game ?
Lest we forget:
http://freebeacon.com/flashback-obama-no-on-nuclear-option-must-protect-...
There was more to that video...
http://freebeacon.com/flashback-obama-nuclear-option-will-increase-fighting-and-bitterness/
Damn. Is there ANYTHING this asshole hasn't done a 180 on?
yeah, his insistence that his birth cert was legit!
governments reflect the people, but the people have changed, per plan.
the flow of immigration over the last 200 years has determined the type of government we live under..a country of mostly of european transplants, produced the USA of 1900. as more peoples were imported, our nation changed..jews become more acceptable, negros rights become obvious, small wars became more frequent, then the rise of international banks and corporations made an impact..rapid illegal and legal immigration from non western european stock sky rocketed (as the last president to enforce the border was the same one who told us to fear the military industrial complex)..with the rapid increase from Asia and non english speaking peoples, we could not expect that a government based on western tradition would continue..this was understood by the CFR and NWO elites, immigration is and was the tool to bring us to this state.
Nice. I suspected as much.
Just another diversion for the dip shits as we navigate our road to hell.
When and why did political assasins become so scarce?
So Reid changes the Senate rules and some judge-buddies get on the Federal payroll, no big deal. Then in 2014, the Senate rolls over in a vomit-tsunami rejection of Democrat's ACA-induced pain and suffering and the GOP then takes control of both the House and Senate. How smart is Harry Reid now???? Dems should be waving him off the flight deck approach into the ditch-mode right about Friday morning.
Bet me a trillion dollars I'm wrong!
I fear you gravely underestimate the collective stupidity of the general population, and the iron grip of propaganda's well proven effectiveness.
This is a hedge against losing the Senate in 2014. Reid bets that he can get enough RINOs to push him over 51 and stop radical Republicans or the dumb ass Republicans retsore the rule. My money is on the later.
What is the price of freedom these days?
One well placed round in a Kenyan's head
Obama's been saying this for years since he first got elected: "We won", was his refrain over and over to end debate. Then, he'd turn and walk out of the room.
Winning is something a drug addled sitcom star does, but presidents aren't supposed to hang their hat on it. Instead, presidents are obligated to protect and serve the Constitution of the United States, even if it means going against their constituencies, if indeed, it still is the law of the land, which apparently seems to be seen as some romaticism of a by-gone era.
The Electoral College itself as well as separation of powers are two perfect examples against mob rule and minority rights so that the entire country isn't run out of LA, NY and DC.