So its been a couple weeks since the filibuster change. As much as I like Reid and the Dems to further weaken the GOP, I would like to know if since the change, has any of Obama’s nominees been confirmed that would otherwise have been blocked? I hope this rule change isn’t as much as Reid saying “Now we have all the power and leverage, but we’re not going to use it but only threaten to use it”. I want all of Obama’s nominees to be confirmed by the majority Dems, has that happened yet?
Shrug–I’m only commenting on the process. I’m not saying I’m favor of it or not; that’s a separate issue that I’m not interested in right now.
It’s not contrary to the Constitution, which is the only written law or rule that matters here.
If you all don’t agree with me, I’m just going to read the contents of Google into the Record…
You have totally missed my point, which is not about WHO makes the rules, it’s about the farce of having rules on the books which are read in such a way as to substantively contradict the plain meaning of words in the English language. I’ve also used the example of the SDMB member who is banned for following the written rules of the board because a moderator decided that the rules should mean something that is contrary to what they actually state; perhaps you can comment on that scenario instead?
Until a couple weeks ago, such a rule would have to have the support of 67 senators in order to end debate on a motion to create such a rule. Now, you support a process by which the Senate can create arbitrary rules by a majority vote.
Do you recall this incident from a few weeks ago? Basically, the Senate passed a bill that would have avoided a government shutdown that almost certainly had the support of the House of Representatives if it came up for a vote. The rules of the House would have guaranteed that the vote occur. So the House Republican leadership pushed through a rule change, basically in the dead of night, specifically to eliminate that rule in order to avoid taking a vote that would have ended the shutdown.
Personally, I think the rule change was appalling. As a general rule, changing rules in the middle of a game – whether it’s sandlot baseball or legislative procedure – is contrary to the principle of fairness. Now, the Senate has opened itself up to play with the rules by majority vote for momentary political gain whenever it may be convenient. I believe that to be a profound mistake.
On a general level, I think one of the major reasons that our government works well is due to the separation of powers and checks and balances. There is no doubt that the checks can be abused, but it is a fact that neither house now has any check or balance on modifying its rules. The rules of the Senate had served as a check for unfettered ambition, but that has now been seriously eroded, and I think that this precedent could grow into a much more severe problem than the filibuster on nominees could ever be.
So, if the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment actually meant that the government could squelch any speech that it didn’t like, notwithstanding the actual text of the Constitution, would you be okay with that from a process perspective?
You answered my post, but ignored this part:
Is that it?
Or are you really objecting to the concept that the Senate can change the rules of the Senate?
ETA: Perhaps this was answered, indirectly and ambiguoualy in your TL;DR posts. One of my points is that the underlying concepts are very simple. If you can’t explain your position in one clear sentence, then …
Well, yes, of course. The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the Constitution. They may interpret it poorly, but it’s their power to do so.
I think changes to the text of the rules needs to be done in accordance with the text of the rules that have been established.
As I said earlier in the thread, I believe the Constitution invests the power of rulemaking in each body, but doesn’t determine the process. The idea that the Constitution requires a a simple majority for rule changes has no textual support in the Constitution. People are just reading what they wish to be there.
I believe that view is antithetical to a system of laws and the principle of justice. There’s no point in having a system of written laws (or rules) if the word “black” can be reinterpreted to mean “white.”
If a simple majority cannot change the rules of the Senate, then the Senate cannot be meaningfully said to set its own rules. What we have here is a minority of the Senate who wants to prevent the Senate as a whole from exercising its constitutional prerogative.
You’re arguing that “black” mean “white”, when the Constitution gives the power of interpretation to the Supreme Court, but you say it cannot. Or when the Constitution gives the power to determine rules to a house, but you say it cannot.
Something in the state apparatus has to have final say over interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has it. If they interpret it extremely poorly, that interpretation is legal, even if it’s unjust or immoral. Likewise, the Senate determines its own rules. Even if their determination is farcical, it’s still legal.
I think you want our legal system to be just. I do too. But the first priority of a legal system is following its own legalities. That means the Senate determines its own rules and the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution.
If the rules aren’t worth the paper they are written on, then the Senate has no meaningful rules. This is a more severe problem.
I guess I’m aiming for a government which provides rulings that are both non-farcical AND legal; whereas you’re going for one out of two.
Such as laws meaning what they say, and saying what they mean? But you’re arguing the opposite: that it isn’t necessary for certain organs of the government to abide by the actual words of laws.
How so?
I think the point is that the Senate has a rule that you need 60 votes to invoke cloture (which, presumably, also means 60 votes to invoke cloture on a motion to change the rule). It also has a rule that allows an appeal from the presiding officer on the application of the rule; such appeal (apparently) subject to a simple majority.
I think the objection is that the Senate didn’t change the first rule. Rather it used the appeal rule to force a ruling that the rule doesn’t say what it says.
I agree that this looks a little shady, but I can’t see getting worked up over it. The only practical effect, I think, is that it allows rules changes mid-session by majority even though (I guess) they all agreed at the beginning of the session not to allow that.
The actual words of laws don’t mean anything except what the state thinks they mean. The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the actual words of laws. Are you trying to say your interpretation is more authoritative?
I’m saying the legal process is legal. Nothing more or less.
As I explained before.
I don’t follow this at all. Why would a majority adopting a rule that required a supermajority to make a rule change (especially assuming that, I would imagine, the rules expire with each Congress) be unconstitutional? Is the unanimity requirement to suspend the rules unconstitutional?
So the organs of Congress can set their own rules, except rules about setting rules? I’m pretty sure that last part isn’t anywhere in Article I. And what common law are you referring to? Can you point to a case that prohibits parliamentary bodies from requiring supermajorities?
While fully acknowledging that there are cases that make interpretation of law very difficult; I say that the Supreme Court, the Senate, and any other government agency is not entitled to their own version of the English language in which the interpretation of words can be held to be completely opposite to the plain reading of those words.
Again, nothing much has changed. The process for the majority to use and misuse their control of the interpretation of the rules has always existed. It’s not just septimus and I that support it but the very rules of the Senate do so as well.
It’s not just the Senate that allows appeals from the ruling of the chair. As I’ve said, it’s a basic feature of parliamentary procedure. You’ll find it in every legislature in the land and it’s been there since the founding of our nation. And yet all of these bodies have rules. Obviously they find rules meaningful somehow.
This is my main objection to your posts. It’s one thing to complain about the dishonesty of the “nuclear option” but you are misunderstanding the situation going forward. The Senate is no more likely now to fall into disorder and constantly changing procedure than they were 2 months ago. Democratic Senators didn’t vote to undermine their own individual political power by limiting the filibuster on a whim. It took years of Republican abuse before they were prepared to make that sacrifice.
You are acting as if the dam has suddenly burst and now a slew of changes will be undertaken but why would that happen? The Senate is a very conservative body by nature and its culture is slow to change. The rules have been adapted to fit that culture. It was the constant use of the filibuster to maintain power in the judicial branch and deliberately impair the executive branch that changed things. The “nuclear option” brought procedure back into line with the culture of the Senate. It restored the status quo.
A Senate rule cannot contradict the Constitution. Just like the Senate cannot expel a member with a simple majority, the Senate can change a rule with a simple majority.
They can set whatever rules they like, and follow them however they wish, but rules cannot take away the Senate’s power to make it’s own rules (or any other clause of the Constitution). If the majority does not want to change rules unless three-fifths (or two-thirds, or all) agree, that’s the majority’s prerogative.
The common law of a legislative body is that a majority of a quorum of its members can make decisions for the body, unless specified otherwise. (Sorry, I have no cites, but how could it be otherwise?) The establishing law of the Senate says that each house determines its rules. No specification of a super-majority or unanimity, so a simple majority is what is needed. No rule can override that.