Motus Mentis

The Democrats today decided to grab a little more power — for now at least — by changing the Senate rules so as to prevent filibustering of executive nominees. This enables them to bypass the Republican minority in order to get some left-wing judges onto the D.C. circuit court.

The rule they changed has been in place since 1789; it is intended as a bulwark against what is commonly called “the tyranny of the majority”, one of democracy’s more pernicious defects. (It has many.) The New York Times once referred to it as “a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod.”

Here’s a speech by Harry Reid to the Senate, from May 18th, 2005 — back when the Democrats were the minority party, and therefore a little more concerned with that whole tyranny-of-the-majority thing:

Mr. President, yesterday morning I spoke here about a statement the Majority Leader issued calling the filibuster a “procedural gimmick.’

The Websters dictionary defines “gimmick’ as ”“ – “an ingenious new scheme or angle.’ No Mr. President, the filibuster is not a scheme. And it is not new.

The filibuster is far from a “procedural gimmick.’ It is part of the fabric of this institution. It was well known in colonial legislatures, and it is an integral part of our country’s 217 years of history.

The first filibuster in the U.S. Congress happened in 1790. It was used by lawmakers from Virginia and South Carolina who were trying to prevent Philadelphia from hosting the first Congress.

Since 1790, the filibuster has been employed hundreds and hundreds of times. Senators have used it to stand up to popular presidents. To block legislation. And yes ”“ even to stall executive nominees.

The roots of the filibuster can be found in the Constitution and in the Senate rules.

In establishing each House of Congress, Article I Section 5 of the Constitution states that “Each House may determine the rules.’

In crafting the rules of the Senate, Senators established the right to extended debate ”“ and they formalized it with Rule XXII almost 100 years ago. This rule codified the practice that Senators could debate extensively.

Under Rule XXII, debate may be cut off under limited circumstances.

”“ 67 votes to end a filibuster of a motion to amend a Senate rule.

”“ 60 votes to end a filibuster against any other legislative business.

A conversation between Thomas Jefferson and George Washington describes the United States Senate and our Founders Fathers vision of it.

Jefferson asked Washington what is the purpose of the Senate?

Washington responded with a question of his own, “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?’

“To cool it,’ Jefferson replied.

To which Washington said; “Even so, we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.’

And this is exactly what the filibuster does. It encourages moderation and consensus. It gives voice to the minority, so that cooler heads may prevail. It also separates us from the House of Representatives ”“ where the majority rules.

And it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the government established by the Framers of our Constitution: Limited Government. Separation of Powers. Checks and Balances.

Mr. President, the filibuster is a critical tool in keeping the majority in check. This central fact has been acknowledged and even praised by Senators from both parties. In fact, my colleague from Georgia ”“ Senator Isakson ”“ recently shared a conversation he had with an official from the Iraqi government.

The Senator had asked this official if he was worried that the majority in Iraq would overrun the minority. But the official replied”¦ “no”¦.we have the secret weapon called the ”˜filibuster.’’

In recalling that conversation, Senator Isakson remarked: “If there were ever a reason for optimism”¦ it is one of [the Iraqi] minority leaders, proudly stating one of the pillars and principles of our government, as the way they would ensure that the majority never overran the minority.’

And he was right.

I spoke yesterday about Senator Holt and his 1939 filibuster to protect workers’ wages and hours.

There are also recent examples of the filibuster achieving good.

In 1985, Senators from rural states used the filibuster to force Congress to address a major crisis in which thousands of farmers were on the brink of bankruptcy.

In 1995, the filibuster was used by Senators to protect the rights of workers to a fair wage and a safe workplace.

Now Mr. President, I will not stand here and say the filibuster has always been used for positive purposes.

Just as it has been used to bring about social change, it was also used to stall progress that this country needed to make. It is often shown that the filibuster was used against Civil Right legislation. But Civil Rights legislation passed ”“ – Civil Rights advocates met the burden.

And it is noteworthy that today the Congressional Black Caucus is opposed to the Nuclear Option.

For further analysis, let’s look at Robert Caro, a noted historian and Pulitzer Prize winner.

At a meeting I attended with other Senators, he spoke about the history of the filibuster. He made a point about its legacy that was important. He noted that when legislation is supported by the majority of Americans, it eventually overcomes a filibuster’s delay ”“ as public protest far outweighs any Senator’s appetite to filibuster.

But when legislation only has the support of the minority, the filibuster slows the legislation ”¦prevents a Senator from ramming it through”¦and gives the American people enough time join the opposition.

Mr. President, the right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.

Right now, the only check on President Bush is the Democrats ability to voice their concern in the Senate.

If Republicans roll back our rights in this Chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees”¦the President’s nominees in general”¦and legislation like Social Security privatization.

Of course the President would like the power to name anyone he wants to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and other federal courts.

And that is why the White House has been aggressively lobbying Senate Republicans to change Senate rules in a way that would hand dangerous new powers to the President over two separate branches ”“ the Congress and the Judiciary.

Unfortunately, this is part of a disturbing pattern of behavior by this White House and Republicans in Washington.

From Dick Cheney’s fight to slam the doors of the White House on the American people”¦

To the President’s refusal to cooperate with the 9-11 Commission”¦

To Senate Republicans attempt to destroy the last check in Washington on Republican power”¦

To the House Majority’s quest to silence the minority in the House”¦

Republicans have sought to destroy the balance of power in our government by grabbing power for the presidency, silencing the minority and weakening our democracy.

America does not work the way the radical right-wing dictates to President Bush and the Republican Senate Leaders. And Mr. President, that is not how the United States Senate works either.

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.

Well! As Groucho once said:

These are my principles. If you don’t like them … well, I have others.

Just remember: what goes around comes around. Given how things have been going for the Democrats lately, the composition of the Senate may be a little different after 2014.

As we all know by now, the good-for-nothing Obamacare website was built, at a cost to U.S. taxpayers of hundreds of millions, on a no-bid contract awarded to a Canadian company called CGI (which stands for Conseillers en Gestion et Informatique).

But why CGI? Wouldn’t it have made patriotic sense, at the very least, to have awarded such a lucrative contract to an American company? The choice seems unlikely to have been based on the company’s stellar record of past performance.

So what’s the deal here? Perhaps this will shed some light on the matter.

The indefatigable JK sends along this item, with the comment “Good thing they raised the debt ceiling in time.”

This is OUR MONEY, people.

OK, the battle’s over, if not the war, and as we carry the dead from the blood-soaked field, Obamacare is still the “law of the land”. (“Flaw of the land”, according to some, but never mind.)

So: how’s it going? Megan McArdle’s been wondering. If you are too, here’s a nifty website to help you follow along.

I have a question for all of you who say insist that the Democrats have played no causal role in this government shutdown and impending default (there’s no reason why the US must cease paying its debt service if the debt ceiling isn’t raised, by the way).

(Just to be clear: although I agree with the goals they have sought to achieve, I am in this post staking out no position on the wisdom, from a purely tactical perspective, of what the Republicans have done.)

Right, then. Let’s assume, arguendo, that all of the rhetoric we’ve been hearing is spot on: the blackhearted Republicans, in thrall to the stupid and racist Tea Party, are totally insane, and don’t care who gets hurt; they’d rather see the world burn than put down the guns they are holding to the President’s head. They really mean it: they’ll crash the economy, and they’ll keep the government shut down forever, unless they get their way. Let us assume also that, as the Democrats are fond of reminding us, it will be, in human terms, a terrible catastrophe. A great many Americans will see their savings wiped out as the economy tanks again; many will even die for want of government services. All this unless the President and the Senate majority accede to the House’s demands to accept item-by-item funding, or repeal Obamacare waivers, or roll back the medical-device tax, or whatever. There’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that these Republicans are evil, criminally insane desperadoes, who have hijacked the benevolent American system for their own foul ends.

So, the question is:

You are a loving father, and a criminally insane desperado holds a knife to your child’s neck, threatening to do her grievous, perhaps fatal, harm unless you hand over something you value greatly: perhaps some precious gift you’ve toiled for years to be able to give to your family. (Your home, for example.) The police are nowhere to be seen. Things are at the breaking point: it is plain that if you don’t act now, the worst will happen.

What should you do? What would you do?

You are President Obama, and you love America and its people (we’ll accept that second, slightly hard-to-swallow premise arguendo, just as we did the first). These Republican mad-dogs are holding a gun to the nation’s head, and they are crazy enough to shoot, unless you make some compromise on your cherished legislation. If you don’t give them at least some of what they want, and they pull the trigger, the nation will suffer terribly, perhaps irreversibly. They will of course be reviled for it, but by then it will be too late.

What should you do?