If you lose the game, you change the rules so you can win again. At least, that’s the way Sen. Majority Leader is reportedly considering fixing his problem of fewer votes and narrower margins in the Senate.
The Senate does not change its rules every two years like the House does. Because the Senate only elects one-third of its members every two years, it has been considered a “continuing body” and its rules stand until changed. Rule 22 since 1975 has said that 60 votes are required for cloture — cutting off debate and allowing consideration of a measure — and 60 votes for passage of a measure in the U.S. Senate.
It also takes a two-thirds vote — 67 senators — to change a Senate rule — or so everyone has believed. But reports from Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) and the National Journal indicate Reid and the Democrats, using the type of convoluted hairsplitting only lawyers on nefarious missions can summon, are considering the theory that they can hold a vote on a measure declaring the Senate no longer a “continuing body” but free to change rules every two-year session. And they are thinking they can pass such a measure by a simple majority — 51 votes (“Reid’s Nuclear Option in the Senate,” Investor’s Business Daily, 12/29/10).
According to Emily Miller for Human Events, IBD reports, Reid held a closed-door meeting discussing conducting such a coup the first day of the new Congress, Wednesday, Jan. 5. The Democrats could then change the rules to a simple majority for passage of all measures, thus dulling the edge of Democrat losses in November. Instead of a minority of Republicans being able to block some of the left’s legislation, Harry would need nine fewer votes to ram something like the unions’ “free choice” legislation through.
This kind of smarmy maneuver reminds us of the Democrats’ attempt last session to pass a law by passing a piece of legislation that said they had already passed a bill they had never brought to the floor. This kind of stunt is so insulting and contemptuous of American citizens as to remind us of feudal nobles thumbing their noses at the poor peasants, sure that the peasants had not the mental capacity to know they were being hoodwinked.
Marty Gold, a former Senate leadership aide, draws his analogy from contemporary sources:
“Changing the rules in this extraordinary process has the effect of election nullification,” Gold said, IBD reports. IBD suggests Harry might be channeling Hugo Chavez here.
Sure looks that way.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
freemarketcarnivore
Free Market Carnivore's Blog 
Nine Fewer Votes — What Harry’s Rule Rigging Is About
If you lose the game, you change the rules so you can win again. At least, that’s the way Sen. Majority Leader is reportedly considering fixing his problem of fewer votes and narrower margins in the Senate.
The Senate does not change its rules every two years like the House does. Because the Senate only elects one-third of its members every two years, it has been considered a “continuing body” and its rules stand until changed. Rule 22 since 1975 has said that 60 votes are required for cloture — cutting off debate and allowing consideration of a measure — and 60 votes for passage of a measure in the U.S. Senate.
It also takes a two-thirds vote — 67 senators — to change a Senate rule — or so everyone has believed. But reports from Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) and the National Journal indicate Reid and the Democrats, using the type of convoluted hairsplitting only lawyers on nefarious missions can summon, are considering the theory that they can hold a vote on a measure declaring the Senate no longer a “continuing body” but free to change rules every two-year session. And they are thinking they can pass such a measure by a simple majority — 51 votes (“Reid’s Nuclear Option in the Senate,” Investor’s Business Daily, 12/29/10).
According to Emily Miller for Human Events, IBD reports, Reid held a closed-door meeting discussing conducting such a coup the first day of the new Congress, Wednesday, Jan. 5. The Democrats could then change the rules to a simple majority for passage of all measures, thus dulling the edge of Democrat losses in November. Instead of a minority of Republicans being able to block some of the left’s legislation, Harry would need nine fewer votes to ram something like the unions’ “free choice” legislation through.
This kind of smarmy maneuver reminds us of the Democrats’ attempt last session to pass a law by passing a piece of legislation that said they had already passed a bill they had never brought to the floor. This kind of stunt is so insulting and contemptuous of American citizens as to remind us of feudal nobles thumbing their noses at the poor peasants, sure that the peasants had not the mental capacity to know they were being hoodwinked.
Marty Gold, a former Senate leadership aide, draws his analogy from contemporary sources:
“Changing the rules in this extraordinary process has the effect of election nullification,” Gold said, IBD reports. IBD suggests Harry might be channeling Hugo Chavez here.
Sure looks that way.
Share this:
Like this:
Related
- Political Commentary
on January 5, 2011 at 12:48 am Leave a CommentTags: Political & Economics Commentary
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://freemarketcarnivore.org/2011/01/05/nine-fewer-votes-what-harrys-rule-rigging-is-about/trackback/
RSS feed for comments on this post.