Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply

Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Yes
32
65%
No
8
16%
Not sure
9
18%
 
Total votes: 49

User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by El Guapo »

noxiousdog wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:11 am
malchior wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:18 pm There aren't too many examples of a political system that broke down this badly that just 'healed itself'.
Ours, on multiple occasions. It wasn't a decade before early US politicians were writing Alien and Sedition acts to throw their political opponents in jail.
Plus, like, we had a whole civil war.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by noxiousdog »

And the gilded age, McCarthy, Nixon, and Vietnam.

My point is that political disfunction started as soon as Washington retired.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 29816
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by stessier »

Yeah, theory is great. It all falls apart when people get involved.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by El Guapo »

noxiousdog wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:19 am And the gilded age, McCarthy, Nixon, and Vietnam.

My point is that political disfunction started as soon as Washington retired.
I'd be more optimistic about the ability of our political system to muddle through if it wasn't for the Senate. It currently gives 30% of the population as much power as 70%, and that imbalance is only going to get worse. Plus fixing the problem (which stems from equal representation of the states in the Senate regardless of population) is specifically prohibited by the constitutional amendment provision of the Constitution (no amendment can change that without the consent of the affected states, which will never happen).

So we're left with a broken Senate structure that essentially can't be fixed through ordinary legal means.
Black Lives Matter.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:17 am
noxiousdog wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:11 am
malchior wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:18 pm There aren't too many examples of a political system that broke down this badly that just 'healed itself'.
Ours, on multiple occasions. It wasn't a decade before early US politicians were writing Alien and Sedition acts to throw their political opponents in jail.
Plus, like, we had a whole civil war.
The Alien and Sedition thing is a bad example in my opinion. All political systems have their problems but the Civil War is an example of a system blowing apart versus healing itself IMO. There was some sort of continuity of government for sure. But only after a hugely devastating internal conflict. It shouldn't be seen as some sort of success that our system has held it together as it lurched from generational problem to generational problem until it started shaking itself to pieces recently.

What I'm getting at is that systems when they get this dysfunctional don't return to a 'normal' state. They end in civil wars, radical changes in government structure, etc. The US Government before the Civil War was very, very different from the one after it.

Edit:
El Guapo wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:24 am
noxiousdog wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 9:19 am And the gilded age, McCarthy, Nixon, and Vietnam.

My point is that political disfunction started as soon as Washington retired.
I'd be more optimistic about the ability of our political system to muddle through if it wasn't for the Senate. It currently gives 30% of the population as much power as 70%, and that imbalance is only going to get worse. Plus fixing the problem (which stems from equal representation of the states in the Senate regardless of population) is specifically prohibited by the constitutional amendment provision of the Constitution (no amendment can change that without the consent of the affected states, which will never happen).

So we're left with a broken Senate structure that essentially can't be fixed through ordinary legal means.
The Senate has become the current problem but I definitely subscribe to the idea that the core problem is the way they divided up the 'traditional powers' and how we select our President. Having elections for Congress every 2 years and elections for President every 4 years leads to a messy misallocation of 'political capital'.

I'm not saying it ever was perfect but the problem has really reared it's head. Any new modern President rushes to get things done because about a year into their term the air starts to come out of the balloon because of the upcoming midterms. Then their party inevitably loses seats in that midterm and the other side claims they have the ball. Then a year later the next Presidential election comes along...rinse repeat. The whole thing was supposed to provide stability but we can see that it doesn't work.

This wasn't that bad when you mostly had some level of cooperation about the 'big picture' but now that we're polarized to extremes we see the wheels come off the bus. President's fall back to rule by EO locked inside a set of rules that can't be changed because Congress would need to act. The Judiciary at times steps in to release pressure on the system but I think we'll see the opposite going forward.

And just like in the run up to the Civil War we have ended with a system that can't solve big picture problems. It really appears this experiment was fundamentally poorly designed. And like you said elsewhere that makes sense since it was a first try at a modern democracy. However, much of the Western hemisphere took up our model and it has led to little more than misery. It's too bad because I think autocracy is going to win again eventually and we really missed an opportunity to succeed at this.
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19980
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Carpet_pissr »

noxiousdog wrote:
malchior wrote: Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:18 pm There aren't too many examples of a political system that broke down this badly that just 'healed itself'.
Ours, on multiple occasions. It wasn't a decade before early US politicians were writing Alien and Sedition acts to throw their political opponents in jail.
Yeah, I’m trying hard to keep in mind just how bad things have been in the more distant past (say 50 years + ago).

When I read books that deal with specific periods in American history in depth, I’m continually amazed by some of the outrageous shit.

It SOMEwhat grounds me in terms of our current issues, and at least makes me pause to wonder if things are really bad as they seem to be. I THINK though, as bad as some individual branches/leaders/laws, etc were in the past, the current “unpleasantness” seems more systemic.
User avatar
noxiousdog
Posts: 24627
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:27 pm
Contact:

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by noxiousdog »

I bet we don't know half the outrageous stuff that went on. The press was limited and no radio... let alone internet.
Black Lives Matter

"To wield Grond, the mighty hammer of the Federal Government, is to be intoxicated with power beyond what you and I can reckon (though I figure we can ball park it pretty good with computers and maths). Need to tunnel through a mountain? Grond. Kill a mighty ogre? Grond. Hangnail? Grond. Spider? Grond (actually, that's a legit use, moreso than the rest)." - Peacedog
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Kraken »

The Guardian persuaded me to change my vote from Not sure to Yes, if I could.

Nut graf:
the filibuster rules allowing 41 senators to halt legislation effectively empower a group of Republican senators representing just 22% percent of the population to gridlock the government. Again, considering that it only takes 50% of the vote to get elected, the filibuster means that about 11% of the voting-age population has successfully elected Republican senators who can theoretically block anything that polls show the overwhelming majority of the country might want.
It's worth reading if you like numbers and logic. The gist is that the Senate inherently empowers the minority and the filibuster can superempower them. (The author was Bernie Sanders' campaign speechwriter, so he might have an agenda.)
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by LordMortis »

Kraken wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:06 pm The Guardian persuaded me to change my vote from Not sure to Yes, if I could.

Nut graf:
the filibuster rules allowing 41 senators to halt legislation effectively empower a group of Republican senators representing just 22% percent of the population to gridlock the government. Again, considering that it only takes 50% of the vote to get elected, the filibuster means that about 11% of the voting-age population has successfully elected Republican senators who can theoretically block anything that polls show the overwhelming majority of the country might want.
It's worth reading if you like numbers and logic. The gist is that the Senate inherently empowers the minority and the filibuster can superempower them. (The author was Bernie Sanders' campaign speechwriter, so he might have an agenda.)
Tyranny of the minority. I have a desire to keep that check but at the same time, as is, it's too powerful. I don't know the right answer.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43496
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Blackhawk »

Answer? Anything that get filibustered gets a vote. At 50 votes it goes up for a nationwide simple majority vote by the public. Now the 41 representing 11% pf the populace that are blocking the popular proposal have motivation to work across the aisle, as otherwise it's getting passed without their input.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Smoove_B »


Partial list of Biden agenda items that are toast in the Senate if the filibuster remains:

• $15 minimum wage
• Universal gun background checks
• Dream Act
• “For The People” Act
• John Lewis voting rights act
• ACA public option
• Equality Act
• George Floyd police bill
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8487
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Alefroth »

I'd like to see what Manchin campaigned on.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by malchior »

Alefroth wrote: Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:05 pm I'd like to see what Manchin campaigned on.
I can say I doubt he ran on a platform that included his the defense of his daughter after she price gouged people on epipens.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Smoove_B »

I'm sure the (D) holdouts will take this into consideration:
Over 350 scholars, historians and political scientists urge Congress to take action on filibuster reform in a new letter first obtained by TPM, arguing that the Framers never intended for the Senate to rely on supermajorities to pass even routine, bipartisan legislation.

...

Today, they wrote, the filibuster has all but stopped legislative activity, thereby giving the executive branch outsized power and worsening partisan divides. And perhaps most worryingly of all, they added, is the damage it’s doing to democracy.

They cited statistics that nearly 80 percent of the bills blocked by the filibuster in the past 30 years were bipartisan, and that nearly a quarter of the filibustered bills in the last 16 Congresses were supported by senators representing over 60 percent of the U.S. population.

“This dynamic is untenable for a democracy,” they warned. “A government unable to produce results that significant majorities of the public elect their representatives to deliver is no longer a representative government.”
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Little Raven
Posts: 8608
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26 am
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Little Raven »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the Republicans have employed the filibuster even once this session.

The problem that the Democrats have is not getting to 60 - it's getting to 50.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43496
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Blackhawk »

Yep. The decisions concerning the future of the entire nation are hinging around what will get one man reelected.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by El Guapo »

Little Raven wrote: Tue May 04, 2021 10:22 pm Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that the Republicans have employed the filibuster even once this session.

The problem that the Democrats have is not getting to 60 - it's getting to 50.
They don't need to actually employ it (which presumably would mean voting on cloture) for the most part, but it's very much still a key constraint. Once it's apparent that a bill is subject to the filibuster (e.g., not a reconciliation bill, judge, etc.), and once it's apparent that it won't get to 60 votes (which is true for essentially everything these days) then the bill gets abandoned because it's obvious that it's never going to pass.

If and when the filibuster is eliminated, then people will start working to 50 on more bills, because that will become the necessary votes to pass bills (instead of 60).
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by ImLawBoy »

That's kind of like saying that nuclear weapons weren't really a concern during the Cold War because no one was using them. It's the knowledge that they're there and the threat of the use that has a significant impact.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
Remus West
Posts: 33592
Joined: Mon May 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Location: Not in Westland

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Remus West »

ImLawBoy wrote: Wed May 05, 2021 9:26 am That's kind of like saying that nuclear weapons weren't really a concern during the Cold War because no one was using them. It's the knowledge that they're there and the threat of the use that has a significant impact.
The filibuster gives cover to the Republicans by allowing them not to go on record voting against popular bills. The threat of the filibuster is being used by borderline Ds, like M and S to allow them to bad mouth popular bills and ideas instead of being put under the press themselves to get to 50.
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken
User avatar
Carpet_pissr
Posts: 19980
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:32 pm
Location: Columbia, SC

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Carpet_pissr »

I think it's time to change the thread title to something more realistic, like "CAN the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?"

"Should" implies they are able, but merely need to decide which way to go.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Smoove_B »

I *think* this goes here:
The direction of the GOP poses an enormous challenge for Democrats: How do you deal with an opposition party that is strategically committed to undermining core democratic institutions? And, more urgently, what are the consequences of not reforming those institutions before they’ve been dismantled?

As it stands, Democrats and progressive activists for democratic reform have coalesced around HR 1, a bill passed by House Democrats that would, among other things, end partisan gerrymandering and create a national system for automatic voter registration. But the prospects of HR 1 becoming law are slim, mostly because key Democratic senators like Joe Manchin (WV) and Kyrsten Sinema (AZ) won’t break the filibuster to pass it.

...

The most destructive thing that Trump did on his way out the door was he took the Republicans’ waning commitment to democracy and he weaponized it, and he made it much worse to the point where I think that a good deal of rank-and-file Republican voters simply don’t believe that Democrats can win a legitimate election. And if Democrats do win an election, it has to be fraudulent.

So 2020 felt like a test run. The plot to overturn the 2020 election never had a real chance of working without some external intervention like a military coup or something like that, which I never thought was particularly likely. But the institutional path that they pursued to steal the election failed because they didn’t control Congress and they didn’t control the right governorships in the right places.

So I worry complacency has set in on the Democratic side and people are lulled into thinking things are normal and fine just because Biden’s approval ratings are good.
More:
What needs to be done has gotten more complex. The structural problems are even worse than I anticipated. I also didn’t fully anticipate the unapologetically authoritarian turn in Republican politics. But the fixes are still there. You have to abolish the filibuster in the Senate, you have to mandate national nonpartisan redistricting, you have to make voting easier, and you have to outlaw some of these Republican voter suppression tactics.
On Manchin:
Certainly the laws that you can pass are contingent on getting the most moderate member of your caucus on board. If Joe Manchin (D-WV) says, “I won’t do $15 minimum wage, I’ll do $12.” Then you’re stuck with $12 or you get nothing. And so that’s a reality.

But I think the problem with this analysis is the assumption that Manchin is an ideological roadblock for progressivism, where he seems to me more of a procedural roadblock to the constitutional hardball that needs to get played here. I mean, he voted for the Covid-19 relief bill, and that was one of the most left-wing things I’ve ever seen come out of Congress. So I don’t actually think that Manchin is that far from the center of the caucus in terms of policy.

Where Manchin seems to be very far away from what House Democrats want to do is on the democracy reform stuff. It’s maddening because nothing that Manchin wants to do policy-wise can get done without abolishing the filibuster. Democrats are not going to have a majority after next year if they don’t do some of these things now. So it’s a mistake to assume Manchin can’t be moved. That’s the job of leadership. That’s Joe Biden’s job. That’s Chuck Schumer’s job.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by malchior »

When people think of democracy dying, they think of some very dramatic event like Trump riding down Pennsylvania Avenue in a tank or something. That’s not the reality here.

Take the scenario where Republicans don’t have to steal the 2024 election. They just use their built-in advantages in which Biden wins the popular vote by three points but still loses the Electoral College. Democrats win the House vote but lose the House. Democrats win the Senate vote, but they lose the Senate.

That’s a situation where the citizens of the country fundamentally don’t have control of the agenda and they don’t have the ability to change the leadership. Those are two core features of democracy, and without them, you’re living in competitive authoritarianism. People are going to wake up the next day and go to work, and take care of their kids, and live their lives, and democracy will be gone. There really won’t be very much that we can do about it. Or there’s the worst-case scenario where the election is stolen and then we’re sleepwalking into a potentially catastrophic breakup of the country.

One thing I would ask Republicans: If it goes that way, what is it that you think you will have won? What are we even fighting about at this point? You got your corporate tax cuts. You got the Supreme Court. What is the purpose of this? Why do you want the power if it means alienating half the country and potentially breaking it up? I guess I just hope that there will be some introspection among party leaders when we’re approaching that precipice.
This is exactly right. It isn't necessarily going to be some dramatic even where states even start seceding. There aren't clear lines even to talk about there. What'll more likely happen is mass unrest and brutal crackdowns. And that last bit is the part we can't know. Maybe there is a soul still in there to step back from the brink. Maybe the business community steps up. It will depend heavily on who is on that ticket. If it's Trump, a lot of people may die in that scenario. The guy is evil and won't hesitate to pull the trigger. We'll have to see. Another possibility not discussed is I think there is a chance Biden gets impeached in 2023 no matter what just to add more crazy into the equation. It'd be the ultimate show of allegiance to Trump.
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Drazzil »

You guys are missing the forest for the trees. Biden and the Democrats will not NOT get rid of the filibuster. Democrats don't want to fight for structural reform ever. Their donors and the RNC donors are exactly the same. They want mostly the same thing. The DNC has bet that they can run for office on preventing the R's from gaining seats, because they're worse. Once in office they try to tepidly change things around the margin. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it were.

The RNC will sweep back into office in 22, and cause more damage and maybe even create a civil war along the way (or at least a constitutional crisis) as the Democrats refuse to fight. Everyone can see the writing on the wall. The United States is over. Nothing can save it. The Republicans are madmen, the Democrats are cowards, the populace are complacent and the media is gagged.

The only thing that separates us from the Weimer republic is another major crisis (probably a stock market Crisis, or a dollar collapse.) Who knows?

Its all over. It's been over for a while now. The only thing we are waiting for is the walking corpse to fall dead.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
User avatar
Holman
Posts: 28907
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Between the Schuylkill and the Wissahickon

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Holman »

Drazzil wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 5:23 pm You guys are missing the forest for the trees. Biden and the Democrats will not NOT get rid of the filibuster. Democrats don't want to fight for structural reform ever. Their donors and the RNC donors are exactly the same. They want mostly the same thing. The DNC has bet that they can run for office on preventing the R's from gaining seats, because they're worse. Once in office they try to tepidly change things around the margin. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it were.
Suppose the Dems had 52 senators, with only two of them (Manchin and Sinema) opposed to eliminating the filibuster.

Do you still think they wouldn't dump it and move forward with signature legislation right now?
Much prefer my Nazis Nuremberged.
User avatar
geezer
Posts: 7551
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:52 pm
Location: Yeeha!

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by geezer »

This all gives me a giant headache.

I think, "..of course the Dems should eliminate the filibuster, because otherwise they will be forever stymied. Then I think, "...but the Republicans have a built-in representational advantage, and it's much, much easier for them to control House Senate, and White House at the same time that it is for the Dems, and the thought of this iteration of Republicans with that kind of unchecked power is terrifying." Then I realize, "look, the second they DO have that control again, the filibuster is gone anyway, and the whole time they'll be crowing about how the Democrats practically almost definitely did it anyway so it's really their fault, and enough of the mouth breathing stupid US population will buy it and there won't be any outcry worth anything." So in the end, the only smart play I see is for the Dems to blow it up, then pass laws like HR1 that put representation back to as close to equitable as we can and hope for the best, because the next 18 months may be the last chance they have to do anything of consequence.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8487
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Alefroth »

A great question for Manchin would be whether he thinks the filibuster survives the next time Republicans get a majority.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by malchior »

Alefroth wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 6:51 pm A great question for Manchin would be whether he thinks the filibuster survives the next time Republicans get a majority.
He knows the answer or he is a fool. I don't think he is though and that's the thing. The conclusion I have to draw is he obviously doesn't care. He is an old, rich white man. He has *nothing on the line*.

Also - meanwhile Feinstein is losing it or being evasive.

Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Drazzil »

Holman wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 5:58 pm
Drazzil wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 5:23 pm You guys are missing the forest for the trees. Biden and the Democrats will not NOT get rid of the filibuster. Democrats don't want to fight for structural reform ever. Their donors and the RNC donors are exactly the same. They want mostly the same thing. The DNC has bet that they can run for office on preventing the R's from gaining seats, because they're worse. Once in office they try to tepidly change things around the margin. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it were.
Suppose the Dems had 52 senators, with only two of them (Manchin and Sinema) opposed to eliminating the filibuster.

Do you still think they wouldn't dump it and move forward with signature legislation right now?
No

I think that they aren't going to move forward and dump anything. If they really wanted to they could peel off two republicans, someway, somehow. The only chance the Dems have is to dump the filibuster and make real, lasting change, but that would never happen B/C the democrats are using the filibuster as an excuse to get nothing done. The Dems will not remove the filibuster. Then they would have no excuse for doing nothing.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
Drazzil
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:54 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Drazzil »

malchior wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 6:53 pm
Alefroth wrote: Thu May 27, 2021 6:51 pm A great question for Manchin would be whether he thinks the filibuster survives the next time Republicans get a majority.
He knows the answer or he is a fool. I don't think he is though and that's the thing. The conclusion I have to draw is he obviously doesn't care. He is an old, rich white man. He has *nothing on the line*.

Also - meanwhile Feinstein is losing it or being evasive.

Feinstain is a self serving Alzheimer's ridden power obsessed POS. She is bitterly opposed to progress, and completely disconnected from reality.


*sigh^ Forgive me guys. I'm feeling hopeless tonight. I just don't see a way that this breaks in a favorable way.
Daehawk wrote:Thats Drazzil's chair damnit.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by malchior »

Drazzil wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 1:55 am*sigh^ Forgive me guys. I'm feeling hopeless tonight. I just don't see a way that this breaks in a favorable way.
It's only natural to feel a bit hopeless right now if you are actually paying attention. The situation is bleak and the path out is narrow and narrowing quickly. The only thing left is to seize the opportunity of foresight about the likelihood of bad stuff happening in the future and get shit ready. A lot of our fellow Americans are sleepwalking or marching with purpose towards a disaster. Don't be like them. Keep preparing.
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by LordMortis »

Drazzil wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 1:55 am *sigh^ Forgive me guys. I'm feeling hopeless tonight. I just don't see a way that this breaks in a favorable way.
I find it easier to get on with life since early January (this may not be a good thing but I can't take hopelessness every single day. It might very well literally be killing me) but I still empathize.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by malchior »

WaPo

This is pretty much CW here but good to see this getting coverage in the national paper's now.
... (snipped the beginning as it was context about McConnell's behavior around 2nd impeachment)

Gladys Sicknick — the mother of Brian D. Sicknick, the Capitol Police officer who suffered two strokes and died of natural causes a day after he confronted rioters at the insurrection — visited Senate offices on Thursday seeking Republicans who would allow a cloture vote to set up an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate the violence. That apparently unnerved McConnell, according to a CNN report. One Republican “told CNN that McConnell has even made the unusual move of asking wavering senators to support filibustering the bill as ‘a personal favor’ to him.” That Republican told CNN, “No one can understand why Mitch is going to this extreme of asking for a ‘personal favor’ to kill the commission.”

No one? Perhaps he fears enraging the disgraced former president. Perhaps he fears reminding voters of Republicans’ participation in spreading the “big lie” that the election was stolen and attempting to overturn electoral votes even after the mob rampaged through Capitol. Perhaps he fears possible discovery of some Republicans’ deeper involvement in the insurrection. Perhaps he fears that the commission would debunk the “big lie,” which is now the justification for voter-suppression efforts around the country. And perhaps he fears Americans will conclude that Republicans cannot be trusted with power. (If the GOP holds the House in January 2025, does anyone feel confident it will abide by the results of the electoral college?) In essence, McConnell likely thinks a “personal favor” to advance his career and to return him to majority-leader status should take precedence over Gladys Sicknick’s plea to see accountability for her son’s death.

Meanwhile, a key Democrat who has the power to carve out an exception for the filibuster to allow the commission engaged in double talk. Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) declared Thursday, “There is no excuse for any Republican to vote against the commission since Democrats have agreed to everything they asked for.” He continued, “Mitch McConnell has made this his political position, thinking it will help his 2022 elections. They do not believe the truth will set you free, so they continue to live in fear.”

So Manchin will help put an end to this unjustified refusal to inquire into an assault on democracy? Not so fast. “I’m not ready to destroy our government,” he said, equating filibuster reform with the destruction of government. (Remember, the filibuster was not used until the late 19th century and became a vehicle for denying civil rights to Black Americans in the 20th century). Manchin added: “It’s time to come together. I think there’s 10 good people.”

Manchin is not dumb. His ploy is obvious: Make preserving the filibuster more important than any item (even voting rights or a commission to investigate insurrection) and insist, despite every bit of evidence to the contrary, that there are 10 Republican votes to break the impasse. But there isn’t. This was made clear on Thursday, when Republicans refused to allow the commission bill to go to the floor. Manchin’s excuse that the filibuster must remain in place to promote debate is incoherent. This was a vote to put a bill on the floor for debate. Rather, the filibuster is a convenient crutch for Manchin, who has avoided taking hard votes when 10 Republicans could not be found to achieve cloture. In that manner, he has ducked the wrath of more conservative voters back home and sidestepped the ire of the party’s progressive base.

Perhaps not now, but eventually, the pressure will intensify on Manchin. His political legacy will be determined: He either will be known as the man who defended democracy in its darkest hour, or the man who helped Republicans subvert our democracy.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by El Guapo »



It's the kind of thing that makes me wonder whether Feinstein's staffers are effectively running the show when Feinstein's not in front of a camera.
Black Lives Matter.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by malchior »

I think after the November-ish time frame social media hearing where she asked a question, got an answer, and then re-asked the exact same question reading the whole thing word for word...we had a pretty good idea she isn't always home. More evidence of that is coming out. It's a shame that these folks prize their own power and belief in immortality above the country's good. But that's very on brand for American "leadership".
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by El Guapo »

malchior wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 11:10 am I think after the November-ish time frame social media hearing where she asked a question, got an answer, and then re-asked the exact same question reading the whole thing word for word...we had a pretty good idea she isn't always home. More evidence of that is coming out. It's a shame that these folks prize their own power and belief in immortality above the country's good. But that's very on brand for American "leadership".
With Feinstein normally I'd attribute her "no one's been talking about this" answer to just a politican stonewalling, but given everything else going on with her...

Also, apparently Leahy has been trying to get Democratic leadership on board with him running for reelection, including arguing with a straight face that he's the only Democrat who can win his Senate seat next election.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Smoove_B »

A concerned Collins and a distressed Manchin. If only there was something he could do.


A distressed Manchin, as the commission appears headed for defeat in the Senate:

"I'm very disappointed, very frustrated that politics has trumped - literally and figuratively - the good of the country."
Maybe next year, maybe no go
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 12:11 pm
malchior wrote: Fri May 28, 2021 11:10 am I think after the November-ish time frame social media hearing where she asked a question, got an answer, and then re-asked the exact same question reading the whole thing word for word...we had a pretty good idea she isn't always home. More evidence of that is coming out. It's a shame that these folks prize their own power and belief in immortality above the country's good. But that's very on brand for American "leadership".
With Feinstein normally I'd attribute her "no one's been talking about this" answer to just a politican stonewalling, but given everything else going on with her...

Also, apparently Leahy has been trying to get Democratic leadership on board with him running for reelection, including arguing with a straight face that he's the only Democrat who can win his Senate seat next election.
I'm also hearing Breyer is bristling about people wanting him to retire. The narcissism of these people and inability to pass the torch is a real force.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by malchior »

A note on the ridiculous broken Senate is many Senators even ducked the vote on cloture. Sinema being one of them. They need to start putting the screws to these cowards. Enough with these games. They need to start fighting.

malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by malchior »

Toomey outs himself as a spineless coward.

User avatar
Octavious
Posts: 20035
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:50 pm

Re: Should the Democrats get rid of the filibuster?

Post by Octavious »

Wow had a family commitment. What a sack of.... And yet they were OK with investigating Benghazi like 10 times. Storm the Capital? Nah lets move along.
Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff.

Shameless plug for my website: www.nettphoto.com
Post Reply