“The nuclear option, if successful, will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of Senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations—next will be executive appointments and then legislation.”

“…If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option, the Senate becomes ipso facto the House of Representatives, where the majority rules supreme and the party in power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), 18 May 2005

“I’ve never passed a single bill worth talking about that didn’t have as a lead co-sponsor a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and a Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist.”

“Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood, Mr. President, that there is a tyranny of the majority.”

- Sen Chris Dodd (D-CT), 18 May 2005

“This is the way democracy ends—not with a bomb, but with a gavel.”

Sen Max Baucaus (D-MT) 19 May 2005

“He hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really, I think, would change the character of the Senate forever.”

“…and what I worry about is that you would essentially have two chambers. The House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side and that’s just not what the founders intended.”

- Senator Barack Obama (D-IL), 25 April 2005

“This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab.”

“…I say to my friends on the Republican side, you may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. And I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”

- Senator Joe Biden (D-DE), 23 May 2005

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

“…but no we are not going to follow the Senate rules– no…because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration.”

- Senator Harry Reid (D – NV), 18 May 2005

REID: “As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect. The Senate was not established to be efficient. Sometimes the rules get in the way of efficiency. The Senate was established to make sure that minorities are protected. Majorities can always protect themselves, but minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all about.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.11591, 12/8/06)

REID: “For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have protected the American people, and rightfully so. The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks. But I recognize this requirement is a tool that serves the long-term interest of the Senate and the American people and our country.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.11591, 12/8/06)

REID: “I say on this floor that I love so much that I believe in the Golden Rule. I am going to treat my Republican colleagues the way that I expect to be treated. There is no ‘I’ve got you,’ no get even. I am going to do everything I can to preserve the traditions and rules of this institution that I love.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.11591, 12/8/06)

REID: “…one of the most sacred rules of the Senate – the filibuster… It is a unique privilege that serves to aid small states from being trampled by the desires of larger states. Indeed, I view the use of the filibuster as a shield, rather than a sword. Invoked to protect rights, not to suppress them.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.434, 1/5/95)

“We are on the precipice of a crisis—a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51 percent of the vote, you don’t get your way 100 percent of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum.”

…And they want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, misread the Constitution, so that they will get their way.

- Senator Chuck Schumer,(D-NY), 18 May 2005

“So this president has come to the majority in the Senate and basically said, ‘Change the rules. Do it the way I want it done.’ And I guess there just weren’t many voices on the other side of the aisle that after the way previous generations of Senators have acted and said, ‘Mr. President, we’re with you. We support you, but that’s a bridge too far. We can’t go there. You have to restrain yourself, Mr. President”

“….You’ve got majority rule and then you’ve got the Senate over here, where people can slow things down—where they can debate—where they have something called the filibuster. You know, it seems like it’s a little less than efficient. Well, that’s right. It is…and deliberately designed to be so.”

“The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out–to ignore the precedent–to ignore the way our system has worked–the delicate balance that we have obtained that has kept this Constitutional system going for the immediate gratification of the present president.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton,(D-NY), 23 May 2005

“For people to suggest that you can break the rules to change the rules is un-American. The only way you can change the rule in this body is through a rule that now says, to change a rule in the Senate rules to break a filibuster still requires 67 votes. You can’t do it with 60. You certainly cannot do it with 51. But now we are told the majority is going to do the so-called nuclear option. We will come in here, having the Vice President seated where my friend and colleague from Nevada is seated. The Parliamentarian would acknowledge it is illegal, it is wrong, you can’t do it, and they would overrule it. It would simply be: We are going to do it because we have more votes than you. You would be breaking the rules to change the rules. That is very un-American.

“The majority can’t get what they want so they break the rules to change the rules. We believe the traditions of the Senate should be maintained. We believe if you are going to change the rules in the Senate, change them legally, not illegally.

“They are talking about doing something illegal. They are talking about breaking the rules to change the rules, and that is not appropriate. That is not fair, and it is not right.”

-Senator Harry Reid, 2005

“The American people deserve a United States Senate that puts them first, instead of partisan delay.”

Hypocritical swine – suffocate from your own words.

Hypocrite.

JPeterman on November 28, 2012 at 1:01 PM

I am altering the deal, pray I don’t alter it any further.

I have a feeling I’m going to wear out that clip over the next couple years.

“Over the past few years important pieces of legislation like the DREAM Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, and the American Jobs Act weren’t even allowed to be debated, and judicial nominations and key members of the administration are routinely forced to wait months for an up-or-down vote,” Pfeiffer added. “The American people deserve a United States Senate that puts them first, instead of partisan delay.”

Actually, this just shows the constitutional stupidity and ignarance of the Huffington Post. Removing the fillibuster (cloture) limits debate. If the fillibuster (cloture) is in place, the debate can continue ad infinitum, Dumb dhimocrapts and librtul marxists! However, it they keep up this mis-information, 47% of the dumba$$ american teat suckers will believe it.

Note also, that the republicans did not interfere with the cloture under Bush, even when they could – out of good sportsmanship. And also note – all you Bush haters – that bush never interfered with the rules of the senate. Dumba$$s! It takes a president, not raised in The US, and without american values, to get involved in this.