Senate Dems Target Filibuster Rule

RUSH: Paula in Hartland, Wisconsin, I’m glad you waited. Welcome to the Rush Limbaugh program.

CALLER: Rush, so cool to talk to you. Anyway, I’m gonna get right to my point like I was instructed. Rush, I had a thought doing some reading this morning. I understand that Harry Reid and some Democratic senators are gonna try to push through some changes in the filibuster rules. And as I got thinking about it, I said, ‘Man, I hope I can get Rush today because I need his input on this,’ and I’m thinking, ‘Well, the House is now Republican so it’s really not gonna matter as far as legislation goes,’ but I’m thinking, ‘The Senate does all the judicial and federal nominations, approves them,’ and I’m thinking that since Obama’s agenda is really going nowhere legislatively, that the Democrats are looking at this as a way to load the courts with as radical judges as they can to try to keep their agenda moving forward.

RUSH: Well, now —

CALLER: What do you think?

RUSH: — you know, you are incredibly shrewd, and I mean this. You are incredibly shrewd. I just want to bring one small correction. Their desire to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate goes beyond judicial nominations. They really want to get rid of it. They’ve lost and the filibuster is now an obstacle. So of course, ‘It’s outdated, it’s outmoded, it’s a fetish, and we have to get rid of it. We’ve gotta get rid of this requirement that says we have to have 60 votes to get anything done. That’s just antiquated.’ It held them back. So they’re serious about it in terms of legislation. But the way this breaks down legally is quite fascinating, and a lot of people are calling Republicans hypocrites for opposing the change in filibuster rule, and the reason…

https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/01/05/senate_dems_target_filibuster_rule/

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Paula in in Heartland, Wisconsin. I'm glad you waited. Welcome
to the Russia Inmball program. Rush, so cool to talk
to you. Anyway, I'm going to get right to my point,
like I was instructed, Um, Russia. I had a thought,
UM doing some reading this morning. UM, I understand that
Harry Reid and some Democratic senators are going to try
to push through some filibuster changes in the filibuster rules.

(00:20):
And as I got thinking about it as a man,
I hope I can get rushed today because I need
his input on this. And I'm thinking, well, the House
is now Republican, so it's really not going to manager
as far as legislation goes. But I'm thinking the Senate
does all the judicial and federal nominations, approves them. And
I'm thinking that since Obama's agenda is really going nowhere legislatively, UM,
that the Democrats are looking at this is a way

(00:42):
to load the courts with as radical judges as they
can to try to keep their agenda moving forward. Well, now,
you know you are incredibly shrewd, and I mean this,
you are incredibly shrewd. I just want to bring one
small correction their desire to get rid of the filibuster

(01:03):
in the Senate goes beyond judicial nominations. They really want
to get it. It's they they've they've lost. Uh. The
filibuster is now an obstacle. So of course it's outdated,
it's outmoded, it's a fetish, uh, and we have to
get rid of it. We've got to get rid of
this requirement that says they have to have sixty votes
to getting none. That's just antiquainted and held them back.

(01:26):
So they're serious about it in terms of legislation, but
the way this breaks down legally is quite fascinating. And
a lot of people are calling Republicans hypocrites for opposing
the change in filibuster rule. And the reason it's a
fallacious reason. The reason Republicans are being called hypocrites is

(01:46):
because the Republicans objected to the filibustering of judicial nominees
and now all of a sudden, Democrats want to get
rid of the filibuster, and the Republicans are opposing that. Everybody,
who are you Republican hypocrit it's why you? You you
wanted to stop the Democrats using the filipuster on judicial nominees.
There's a constitutional reason judicial nominees, UH cover both branches.

(02:11):
You have the President who makes the nominations and the
Senate who confirms and saw the filibustering of judicial nominees
is something that affects the executive branch, and that, to
my Lehman's mind, after consultation was several legal scholars, is unconstitutional.
The Senate can't pass legislation limiting the things the executive

(02:38):
branch can do. That's why there's a separation of powers
in the first place. So it is in my mind.
And there are a lot of people on our side,
by the way, who are calling the Republican syprocrits, and
I think they're wrong, and I say this with a
modicum of respect. I don't think the two are the
same thing. The Senate can make whatever rules it wants

(02:58):
for itself, Paula. If if Reid wants to try to
overturn filibuster rule and get rid of sixty votes in
the center, let him try. If he can get the
votes for it, then they've got a new rule. That's
how they operate. Fine and dandy. It's up to them
to make their rules. The President can't tell them what
they have to do, and and the courts can't tell
them what they have to do, but the Senate cannot

(03:20):
in any way restrict what the executive does. So using
the filibuster to get in the way of judicial nominations,
that is what's if any hypocritical, that is what's unconstitutional.
And the Republicans were totally right to oppose that because
that impacts the As I say, the president, he has

(03:42):
a role in the selection of nominees because he selects them.
They they they go through the confirmation process. But it's
it's it's if if Reid wants to get rid of
the filibuster, it's not automatically covering judicial nominees when he
does it. That's there are two separate things. Well, I
understand that, and I just see it as another power
play by Read and company to try to just nullify

(04:05):
the election results. Of course it is no, of course
it is you want to throw it out the window.
This was so important to him, Why didn't he do
it two years ago? The fact that they because he
had sixty votes two years ago until he lost. Scott
Brown's simply exactly my point, or actually exactly my point.
I just I just look at it, so you know, no,

(04:25):
but you're right. But it's not the first time they've
done things I can't remember the top of my head.
But uh, Democrats lose power all of a sudden certain
customs and laws and rules or all of a sudden outdated.
I mean, look, as far as they're concerned, the whole
constitutions could put now the whole Constitution is a I
mean E. J. Dion Jr. In The Washington Post recently

(04:46):
had a piece saying essentially that the Constitution nothing sacred
about it. It's just it was just a political document
and it was put together by virtue of political compromise,
and therefore the people who don't agree with some of
the political compromises of the day when the Constitution was
ratified don't have to support it. I mean, that's the
new liberal thinking that it's not the law of the land,

(05:07):
it is not everything it is. It's no more than
a piece of legislation from two hundred and fifty years ago.
And if you don't like it, you don't like it,
you have to abide by it. That's their new thinking
that they they're the sorest losers. And and and this
is why I've always said, there's no common ground here.
The only thing for us to do is keep winning.

(05:28):
The only thing to do is to keep beating them.
They have no interest in working with us. They have
no interest in common ground or bipartisan or anything. They
are pure, unadulterated stalinist, terry tyranny type people. All they
want to do is rule, not governed, and they have
to be defeated every election. A little history lesson, uh,

(05:51):
ladies and gentlemen. The reason that we have the sixty
vote rule and the Senate today for culture meaning sixty
votes to stop debate and moved to voting on the bill,
essentially sixty votes to pass the bill. The only reason
we have that, the so called filibuster is because the

(06:12):
Democrats changed the rules in nine seventy five when they
had a big Senate majority after Watergate and they were
trying to make sure that they couldn't be stopped. I
had to have sixty vote rule. That's when it started Watergate.
The change was initiated by Walter F. Mondo, who was

(06:37):
soon to become vice president for Jim McCarter, who then
would then get shellacked the second term of Renaulda's magnus.
But that's when this whole sixty vote business. In the
old days, my old days, in sixties, if you were
gonna filibuster, you damn will had to stand up in

(06:58):
her filibuster. You had to stay to start talking and
not stop. And they change the rules. Philipbuster can mean God,
you need sixty votes, sixty votes to stop debate, sixty
votes to stop somebody from speaking who's really not speaking.
But and that happened. So again, the Senate as well

(07:20):
as the House can change their there's new rules in
the House as to day Banner was announcing them. They've
got a rules committee. The Republicans run it. They can
set the rules, and the Democrats have no choice because
they don't have the votes to beat them. So it's
a it's the way it's set up. And the Democrats
run the Senate still and they can set the rules
they want. Now they want to get rid of sixty

(07:42):
because they know where near sixty and there aren't enough Olympians,
Snows and Susan Collins is in there to get them
to sixty even if all the Democrats hold, So of
course sixty it's not fair. The Democrats can't they're running
the Howard the Senate, but they can't getting done because
it's stupid sixty vote requirement that we put in ourselves
back in nine. Now they want to get rid of

(08:04):
it since they can't get there. It is what it is,
and we'll see if I mean, they're gonna need even
Republican votes for that. You got that passed