Do you think the Republicans will try to change the filibuster rule?

[Strawman]

Lots of talk on this. I'm not sure what to think of it but I find it interesting.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/blog/2004/11/MB_2004_44.html#43
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_10_31.php#003940

Also, wouldn't the Republicans need a supermajority of 2/3 to invoke cloture on the rule change debate before they could change the filibuster rule? It is my understanding that cloture on normal debate is requires a 3/5 majority vote, but it is 2/3 on rule changes (67 votes - which would be impossible). Correct me if I am wrong here.

I also wonder if they wouldn't just prefer to force the Democrats in the Senate to use it and take the political benefit of labeling them as obstructionists. If the Republicans could actually govern without being checked, they might actually have to be accountable.

[in_cog_ni_to]

1. YUP. Frist is probably working on it as we type.

Pat Robertson said it was HIS first priority. So, it shall be DONE!

[Cobalt Violet]

9. Either that or dissecting cats

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. Or BOTH!

:hi:

[MsUSA]

2. You bet, they were thinking about it last session, I'm sure that'll

be first on the agenda.

[Paradise]

3. No doubt about it! n/t

[Pirate Smile]

4. They are going to try to change it as it applies to judges so Dems can't

filibuster the judicial nominations.

[Strawman]

7. But won't they need 2/3 to block debate on that rule change? n/t

[formernaderite]

13. No...rule changes are made by simple majority....

or 51 is the magic number.

[Strawman]

16. But they can filibuster to block the rule change vote from happening

and it takes 2/3 to invoke cloture on the rule change.

[Pirate Smile]

19. I saw on a show that they may open the new session of the Senate and

essentially start with a fresh set of rules that they will pass including saying no filibusters or only a majority vote is necessary in approving judicial nominations.

I'm sorry but I can't remember what I saw this on - probably C-span. They said the problem the Repubs will have is with the old time Repubs who are worried about the integrity of the Senate (the few that are left) and who remember being in the minority with a Dem President. This kind of rule change can eventually come back to kick them in the ass but if you are only focused on today, who cares.

[Strawman]

21. Yeah. In 2 years of unchallenged rule they could do alot of damage

If their goal is to basically dismantle the federal gov't, it would make alot of sense. In 2 years of unchallenged rule they could totally get rid of entitlements and privatize everything. Then we would have to basically reconstruct the New Deal from ground zero. If social security is privatized and is somehow no longer a federal entitlement, nothing is sacrosanct.

So there's that temptation for them to do it, but then they have to be afraid of what would happen if the tables were turned and they were ever placed in the minority. Demographically, that's probably inevitable. I wonder how this will go down. I don't think they can achieve their goals without changing the rules. I imagine they could make alot of rules hampering others from fixing the shit they want to do in the future too.

[bullimiami]

5. nope. i think they plan to take the other 5 seats in 2 years.

the fix is in.

[On the Road]

6. Sure, They Will,

but the Democrats will fillibuster to block it. Seriously.
:evilgrin:

[ProdigalJunkMail]

15. filibuster won't work on a rule change

51 is all the senate repubicans need to invoke a rule change

[DBoon]

8. Is the Pope Polish?

Why bother asking?

[Strawman]

10. I guess the question is will they be able to do so.

They may try, knowing full well they will fail. And it begs the question do they really want to succeed or do they win this one by losing like they do on so many other issues.

[POTGNE]

11. They may try

But I think they'll pay for it if they get it passed. I figure they'll most likely lose their majority come 2006. Any nefarious crap they want to get passed, they better get working on because their day is coming! Believe me!

[donhakman]

12. Changing the rules only requires the will

The means can be convoluted and crooked but the result would be that filibuster could be eliminated under threat of arrest by the Sgt. of Arms.

One first secretly changes the rules that govern rule change.
Hide it in a bill etc.

Or stick it in a a bill at 3AM Monday that will be voted upon at 9AM.
Dick Army did that to limit medical liability a couple years ago and it stuck.

So the rules can be changed .

[Strawman]

17. It's really that easy to do by stealth?

If so, that's scary and it's a done deal, at least on judicial nominations.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. Sure they will. They LOVE to change things to benefit themselves

And if we lefties ever take control of stuff again, they'll want us to change the rule right back. :eyes:

-----------------------------------------------------------
FIGHT! Take this country back one town and state at a time!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[seraph]

20. Unlikely.

It's rhetoric.

Even they understand that there may come a time when they are the minority again.

It is unlikely they will want to give up a power they might need someday.