00-00-05
(NOTICE- I originally heard Senator Schumer's speech in sound bytes. The closest I could find to the full text of his speech is on the Hugh Hewitt show website)
But let me say first, Mr. President, as the Senate convenes this week, we stand on the edge of dramatic change in the Senate. And change is usually a good thing. But the change that the other side is trying to invoke is not a good thing. And we all know it. Most Americans know it. Most Democrats know it. Most Republicans know it. Even most of the Senators on the other side know it. And yet, they are so torn because there are small groups, way out of the mainstream, the same people who believe that their message, which may come from the heavens, dictates to them what is right for everybody else, seems to be in control. And it's a crucial time, Mr. President. It's a crucial time for America. The age old checks and balances, that are at the center of this Republic, that are at the center of this Constitution, are hanging in the precipice.
It has always been the Senate, where the founding fathers put...the Senate was a repository of checks and balances. Has been, and is today. It's not like the House of Representatives where the majority leader or the Speaker can snap his fingers and get what he wants. Here, we work in many times by unanimous consent, where you need all 100 Senators to go along. In some instances, we work where you need 67 votes. In some, with 60, and in most, with 51. But the reason that we don't always work by majority rule, Mr. President, is very simple. On important issues, the founding fathers wanted, and where they were correct, in my judgment, that not the slimmest majority should always govern. When it comes to vital issues, that's what they want.
"The Senate is not a majoritarian body. My good friend from Utah got up and spoke. I think he represents about 2 million people in Utah. I represent 19 million in New York State. We have the same vote. You could have 51 votes for a judge on this floor that represents 21% of the American people. So the bottom line is very simple. This has not always been a 50.1 to 49.9 body. It has been a body that has had to work, by its rules, and by the Founding Fathers' intent, that even when you are in the majority, you have to reach out and meet, not all, not most, but some of the concerns of the minority. Now, I understand why my colleague from Utah and make such ridiculous arguments. He's torn. He knows this is wrong. Most of the members on the other side of the aisle know its wrong. Some have had the guts --a handful-- to say no. Some have had the strength to resist the calls of that extreme group or groups. Some are true believers. But some, and my guess is my friend from Utah is one of those, knows it is wrong but decides, "I am going along anyway." When my friend from Utah lists the 10 most ridiculous arguments against keeping the filibuster and he says "checks and balances is a ridiculous argument?" Please. I care a great deal about my friend from Utah. He's a fine man. We're friends. And we've worked together on many things. But he has more respect for the Constitution than to say 'checks and balances is a ridiculous argument.' He knows darn well that a 51 to 49 vote does away with certain kinds of checks and balances."
He says that this will not doom the legislative filibuster? That's an absurd argument? A year ago, my colleagues, if we would have heard that the Republican majority was considering having the Vice President sit in the Chair and rule by fiat, his own interpretation of the Constitution, coming out of nowhere, because the Constitution doesn't mention any of this, certainly a narrow reading wouldn't allow us to address this issue from the Constitution, and he says that we'll rule by fiat from the Chair? That there should be no more filibusters of judges, even though that's been allowed for 200 years? Even though it was done in 2000 by our colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, for Ms. Berzon and Mr. Paez? And then he's saying well, it's absurd that we do it for other things. I say this. Allow them to do it for judges today, they'll do it for social security tomorrow.
So the bottom line is simple, Mr. President. We are appealing to those members of the other side of the aisle, who unlike my friend from Utah, have thus far resisted the entreaties of the hard, hard, hard right, who have resisted the entreaties of the narrow few who are way out there, who say to them have strength. Have courage. The basic makeup of our Senate is at stake. The checks and balances that Americans prize are at stake. The idea of bipartisanship, where you have to come together and can't just ram everything through because you have a narrow majority is at stake. The very things we treasure and love about this grand Republic are at stake.
Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL WTH
Back to Publius' Forum.blogspot.com