This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.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 -
"The election's over, John. We won."
Remember that one? McCain manufactured a laugh and looked down in his lap with a shake of his head, when really you know he wanted to fly across the table like a geriatric spider monkey and tear Barry a new one. In the years between then and now, I think a lot of people have developed those same feelings toward our dear President.
Right before McCain acted on those impulses, he realized his legacy would be better served if photos from his hanoi hilton stay staid hidden.
The first president to be so blatant about "we win" was Andrew Jackson, a Democratic populist, a devotee of patronage and who thumbed his nose at the court in a matter decided in favor of the Cherokee nation regarding involuntary relocation to Oklahoma. This began the tragedy known as the Trail of Tears. His legend as a general also ensured the support of the Army as he defied the Supremes to implement the forced relocation of thousands.
Yea but he did slap the NY Bank in the face--Nichols I think was the guy in NY.
edit --or was it N. Bickel?? something like that
Too bad the country is run out of LA, NY and DC. Maybe in the future we can run LA, NY and DC out of the country.
Cancer of the ass and balls would be too kind for Reid and Obomba.
best comment of the day, IMO.
Statesman, our president is not.
reid should have done it five years ago
Obama (gay) is in the minority? You sure about that HH?
Not in San Fran nor Manhattan. Sure as Hell not on the editorial board of the New York Times.
Might need to check your new math;)
hedgeless, great post.
thanks for the h/t ;-)
I could not possibly disagree more with your perspective. Firstly, Senate rules are just that - Senate rules, not the U.S. Consitution. These rules govern how a bill wends its way to the floor. Secondly, confirmation hearings seek the consent of the Senate - but under the current rules, most nominations never get there. A single committee member can hold it up and under the rules, a supermajority is required for cloture when there is an objection. So, Mr. Horse, where is the text of Reid's proposal? What is the demon really trying to do? From what you have presented, I cannot even tell whether Mr. Reid has changed his prior position. What I am asking is this: the Senate's role in presidential nominations is advice and consent. They ain't making new law. So, does Reid want to end all filibusters, or is his aim a bit lower, only affecting the Senate's advise and consent roll?
Oh, BTW - there is a horrible backlog of cases needing adjudication and a dirth of judges. How exactly would you choose to solve this problem?
steelhead23
"Oh, BTW - there is a horrible backlog of cases needing adjudication and a dirth of judges. How exactly would you choose to solve this problem?"
The DC cout is over staffed... little numbers game on ZH comments 49 down 3 up...
That my is pretty close to 6% approval.... lets see if you pull the Race card the 39% approval rating.. it does not work here....
THIS IS A DIRECT ASSAULT ON THE EXECUTIVE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT AND ELIMINATION OF THE BALANCE OF POWER AND SLIPPERY SLOPE. ..
IT IS NOT ABOUT THIS PRESIDENT..
I support Bil Sessions over at the Constitution project report on touture where Clinton, Bush and Obama should be indited for war crimes.. The whole judicial systems is a mess the Supreme Court can now tax.. What happened to Congressional power to TAX?
YOU ARE JOKING? CHECKS AND BALANCES? THIS IS A TREASONOUS COMMENT (the crime of betraying one's country, esp. by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.)
I propose far fewer laws, and thus far fewer lawsuits, far fewer lawyers, and far smaller government. I propose judges be paid on a per case basis, with claw back provisions when they are reversed on appeal. I also propose that law firms should not be able to bribe judges in the form of campaign contributions.
I have a better idea. Disolve the federal government. It may be the only way to prevent the next civil war.
Wouldn't that be great?
And how about having the laws being rewritten in plain language, thus making the lawyer profession largely superfluous?
i agree completly
Good thing, I was begining to think that morons and idiots were not accurately represented on Zerohedge, you have removed that concern.
He already did it this afternoon. The Dems are now free to pack the DC Circuit (and all other circuit courts). They left the filibuster in place for the supreme court. FOR NOW. But the precedent has been set, and if the Dems don't tear it down the Repubs will, claiming "well, look what the Dems did".
If I had to guess, I'd say this will be looked back on as the beginning of the end of the republic, politically speaking.
Funny how you act as if this criminal facade has any legitmacy.
Of course, if it was the Repugnants doing it it would be the equivalent of the Reichstag fire and the Enabling Acts bringing Hitler to power.
As it is, it beginning to look like Rome when the Senate voted Imperial power to Augustus (Octavius).
Well, I guess, Odufus still has three years left to make himself Dictator for Life.
(On a side note, this has a whiff of desperation about it. Oturdie has been bitch slapped down due to ObamaDontCare. This is just the Demo-rats way to make him appear less of a lame duck than he already is.)
what a crock of shit
How does this POS keep getting elected?
Casino worker unions.
.... an African-Irish mix in the gene pool gotta mean something . . . an ebonics/blarney mix must work, I suspect. oops,,,thought you were talking about the other POS
Uncle Tom is just looking out for our best interests.
Learn to appreciate the hard work of our party bosses.
At the very tip of Door County, WI is a store called "Uncle Tom's Candy Store" (it exists). I don't think you could have found a better name for this administration.
I noticed they changed their name recently, but the state road sign still says "Uncle Tom's Candy Store"
I am afraid the Calvin Candie and Stephen visual reference might be too subtle, especially for those that have not seen Mr. Tarantino's film.
...and thus we have the odd age-old case of a minority telling us that Majority Rule is good for us.
Don't worry, the elite will remind Obama how much of a minority he truly is.
"Barack Obama doesn't care about black people."
"Barack Hussein Obama doesn't care about people." ..... there I fixed it for you!
We are a blathering horde of sheep to be sheared over and over again until it's time for the real slaughter. :-)