I don't think that is what he's saying. He's saying that it's a bad idea to
terminate the filibuster because it is a safeguard for the minority position
and that although the Republicans are in the majority right now and find it
to be a nuisance because the Democrats use it against them, at some point
the Republicans may be in the minority, and then they will miss it if it has
been discontinued.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of R. E. Driscoll Sr
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 8:37 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Interesting Op-Ed Article from WSJ
Miriam:
It seems to me that there are some who wish to 'terminate' the filibuster
rule and some who do not. This author, it seems to me, is saying that
'termination' of filibuster would be of value to Progressives. I thought
this might be of interest to some of our group.
R. E. (Dick) Driscoll, Sr.
On 1/17/2016 1:07 PM, Miriam Vieni wrote:
It always depends on who is in power. Whoever that is, wants to
change these rules.
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of R. E. Driscoll Sr
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2016 12:45 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Interesting Op-Ed Article from WSJ
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/ending-the-filibuster-would-hand-progressives-a
-huge-victory-1452813245>
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ending-the-filibuster-would-hand-progressives-a-
huge-victory-1452813245
Ending the Filibuster Would Hand Progressives a Huge Victory
Senate rules to extend debate serve a distinctly conservative, and
constitutional, purpose.
ENLARGE
Photo: Getty Images/Moment RM
By
Ben Sasse
Jan. 14, 2016 6:14 p.m. ET
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/ending-the-filibuster-would-hand-progressives-a
-huge-victory-1452813245#livefyre-comment>
House and Senate Republicans met at a planning retreat in Baltimore
the past few days. My biggest takeaway has been how deeply House
conservatives yearn for a more "efficient" Senate.
In particular, many want an end to cloture and the
filibuster-long-standing rules that enable the minority to extend debate. It
takes 60 rather than 51 votes to get anything important done in the
100-person Senate. Today that hamstrings the GOP majority in both houses.
In response, I have three thoughts to share with fellow conservative
colleagues. First, I'm really frustrated too. Second, the filibuster flows
from the Founders' design of a system in which they wanted to make it hard,
not easy, for government to act. Third, the desire to limit debate so
government can move quickly is usually a radical, not a conservative,
instinct.
Let's start with our mutual frustration: What has really changed
since Republicans took over Congress? Were promises to roll back President
Obama's agenda of "fundamentally transforming" the nation empty rhetoric?
Isn't it time to enact a conservative agenda? If Senate Democrats stand in
our way, why not change the rules? After all-to quote the president-don't
elections have consequences?
Here's the problem. Progressives believe power-that is the
government-is the center of life. We don't. They place more faith in
government than we do. They want to make it easier, more "efficient," to
grow the government. So making it easier for government to act when
Republicans are in the majority might have consequences we will regret when
we are next in the minority.
Consider the three most consequential moments in the growth of
federal power in the past century-the 1930s New Deal, the mid-1960s Great
Society programs, and the first two years of this administration that
brought us, among other things, ObamaCare. All occurred when Democrats had
the White House, a majority in Congress and, crucially, super majorities in
the Senate. They could act unimpeded by a Republican minority.
If Republicans eliminate the Senate's super majority requirements to
pass bills in the name of efficiency, it will guarantee that every time
Democrats have the presidency and even a bare majority in both houses of
Congress, they will party like it's 1936, 1965 and 2009. They will grow
government, and there will be nothing conservatives can do about it.
Imagine what Democratic majorities could do with no Senate
filibuster: cap and trade, a national gun registry, federal abolition of
state right-to-work laws, the abolition of secret-ballot union
representation elections in favor of card checks, record tax increases.
Everything would be in play. Such a Congress could tick off every box on
Bernie Sanders's wish list, and conservatives would have handed them the
cudgel to do so.
Conservatism begins from a different starting point: Government is
not the center of life. It is not the source of our rights. Government
exists to provide the framework for ordered liberty-that is, to protect our
God-given rights so that free people can freely worship, freely associate,
freely build the next app, even freely root for Alabama football.
The Founders had this conception too. They limited the government
because they believed in nearly limitless human potential. They knew that
America is more than a group of Washington bureaucracies and their
supplicants. The genius of the Constitution is that it separates
legislative, executive and judicial powers. It checks each branch's power to
limit the risk that Washington smothers the dignity of individuals and the
dynamism of local communities-the real centers of life and love.
Conservatives might be tempted to curtail minority rights for
supposedly conservative policies, but that's playing with fire. Any
short-term political gain from undoing the filibuster comes at long-term
expense. Making the Senate more efficient might get a few bills to the
president's desk this year, but at the risk of accelerating our devolution
into a European-style winner-take-all system. Oh, and by the way, President
Obama would veto these conservative bills anyway.
The filibuster is an outgrowth of the Founders' vision of two
distinct, complementary legislative bodies. The House is built for offense.
It closely reflects public opinion with a two-year term. The Senate is built
for defense. It exists to cool the popular passions of the House, and to
serve as a brake on a too-powerful executive.
The Senate is not superior to the House, but it is different.
Without the filibuster, the gap between House and Senate diminishes and with
it our constitutional safeguards.
Rather than abandon the filibuster, conservatives should understand
that deliberative debate exists to protect the Constitution, and preserve
the nation's fundamentally conservative principles. We reject the notion
that Washington can manage all of life's challenges. We dismiss the fantasy
that we are only one election or one strongman away from solving life's
problems by power politics.
We should embrace debate. We should celebrate limited government. We
should seek to persuade. And we should use the floors of Congress in 2016 to
tell the American people what we would pursue if they send a Republican to
the White House in November.
Mr. Sasse is a Republican senator from Nebraska.
R. E. (Dick) Driscoll, Sr.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> This email has been sent from a
virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient> This email has been sent from a
virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai
gn=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
