Senate Dems Target Filibuster Rule

Published Jan 4, 2022, 8:48 PM

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 So of course, ‘It’s outdated, it’s outmoded, it’s a fetish, and we have to get rid of it.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

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. 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 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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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. 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

Rush Limbaugh - Timeless Wisdom

Get a little of Rush each day – his intelligence, analysis, humor and fun – with a clip from the arc 
Social links
Follow podcast
Recent clips
Browse 1,318 clip(s)