-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Democrats poised to rebuff McConnell's filibuster demands
- Thread starter Richiek
- Start date
Power sharing agreement??? Fuck that turtle bitch. If the situation was reversed there wouldn't have even been any talks in the first place. Sit your minority leader ass down you waste of oxygen.
This. Republicans constantly maintained as their reason for going back on not confirming a SCOTUS judge in the last year of a Presidency was because of the split between Senate and Presidential parties. Fucking ram that shit down their throat.
McConnel isn't dumb--he knows the GOP isn't in power forever. He might have passed some legislation nuking it but without the filibuster it would all be repealed the next time they lost control (2021 as it were).
Judicial appointments however can't be as easily changed with a new administration, and the Senate is never going to be 2/3 controlled by any party to impeach the judges. So he repealed the filibuster for things he knew couldn't be undone when he lost power (lifetime appointments), and kept it to use as a tool when he did.
Did it? What laws did the filibuster prevent from being passed?
Your last sentence is of major importance.
Also, I feel like we've been here before. Didn't AOC just talk about how they had to overturn some rule that inhibited certain types of spending?
One put in place by Democrats to curb a Republican President? If we can't hold position, this will bite us in the ass in a few short years.
Filibustering the organizing resolution?
So he wants it nuked, presumably so he can immediately start campaigning on that point.
Schumer your choices are, nuke it and deal with the fallout or change it to require 40 folks present and talking at all times to sustain a filibuster.
I personally am ok with the latter options, in a world with 24 hours news I dare someone to filibuster a civil rights bill. It would be non-stop coverage.
So he wants it nuked, presumably so he can immediately start campaigning on that point.
Schumer your choices are, nuke it and deal with the fallout or change it to require 40 folks present and talking at all times to sustain a filibuster.
I personally am ok with the latter options, in a world with 24 hours news I dare someone to filibuster a civil rights bill. It would be non-stop coverage.
So is the plan just to throw a handful of really popular things — minimum wage, dream act, voting rights, maybe marijuana decrim — on the floor, and dare the GOP to filibuster? And if they do, hope they annoy Manchin into breaking on the issue? Right now my fear is that this is a bluff to try to get the GOP to not filibuster, and that they won't have the votes to actually nuke it if the bluff gets called.
And if the GOP does let a few ultra-popular things through, cool, but it would be kind of a lost opportunity to just kill it immediately and pass some actual big reform. You can scare the GOP into not filibustering the dream act, but if you just kill the filibuster now you could pass some pretty sweeping immigration reforms/expansions with 50 Dem votes. You could get them to let marijuana decriminalization slide, but if you just kill the filibuster you could pass huge criminal justice reforms alongside that. And then there are all sorts of non-starters like DC statehood and building out a public option for healthcare that it needs to be dead for.
And if the GOP does let a few ultra-popular things through, cool, but it would be kind of a lost opportunity to just kill it immediately and pass some actual big reform. You can scare the GOP into not filibustering the dream act, but if you just kill the filibuster now you could pass some pretty sweeping immigration reforms/expansions with 50 Dem votes. You could get them to let marijuana decriminalization slide, but if you just kill the filibuster you could pass huge criminal justice reforms alongside that. And then there are all sorts of non-starters like DC statehood and building out a public option for healthcare that it needs to be dead for.
Filibusters are such a ridiculous thing to have in the first place. "We've got one of the best democracies in the world. Unless we have that one guy who wants to just talk forever and prevent anything from being passed". It's just childish, akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALA NOT LISTENING" for hours on end. Bin it.
It found its way to the UK recently as well, some Tory bellend started using them against discussions on perfectly reasonable subjects, IIRC
It found its way to the UK recently as well, some Tory bellend started using them against discussions on perfectly reasonable subjects, IIRC
Don't give these fuckers an inch. We need to treat the next two years like they're all we have to pass as much progressive legislation as want and we cannot waste them for the sake of bullshit "unity optics". As others have said, if the roles were reversed R's would be gleefully blocking every single thing Dems brought to the table.
He wants the Dems to take touching the legislative filibuster off the table. Basically he wants to ensure that the Senate can't function.
I am confused here as well. Is he essentially wanting Dems to promise NOT to get rid of the filibuster?
Get rid of it. The pubs base rewards them for gumming up the works and making sure nothing is done. They have nothing to lose. The country on the other hand blames the dems when nothing gets done.
The dems better not backdown on this. If this was the other way around the turtle would be laughing his ass off at the suggestion. The Dems own the majority and that's it. Giving up any advantage would be a kick in the teeth to Georgia voters (actually all voters)
I've been wondering this for years, why not make them do a real filibuster every time?
I know that Ted Cruz did it against the ACA but I don't know of other recent examples. It's like the threat of a filibuster is just taken as enough.
Let the GOP make asses out of themselves and then use that to point and say "They are impeding the government, you should vote them out."
I know that Ted Cruz did it against the ACA but I don't know of other recent examples. It's like the threat of a filibuster is just taken as enough.
Let the GOP make asses out of themselves and then use that to point and say "They are impeding the government, you should vote them out."
I might be dense here, but why is there any sort of power sharing agreement when Harris gives the dems 51 votes? It's 51 to 50, what is there to share?
Also I don't get the hype on nuking the filibuster when in reality all the dems have to do is actually force the GOP senators to stand up there and yell on the senate floor for the four to six hours of energy that they have. Democrats seem to think that just saying the word filibuster is the same as actually using it in practice, and it's not. They just need to grow a spine and wait for the temper tantrum to be over. Every time the Democrats used it, I don't recall it actually stopping anything, it just delayed it slightly.
Also I don't get the hype on nuking the filibuster when in reality all the dems have to do is actually force the GOP senators to stand up there and yell on the senate floor for the four to six hours of energy that they have. Democrats seem to think that just saying the word filibuster is the same as actually using it in practice, and it's not. They just need to grow a spine and wait for the temper tantrum to be over. Every time the Democrats used it, I don't recall it actually stopping anything, it just delayed it slightly.
OP
OP
If you are not going to nuke the filibuster, change the rules. Instead of needing to get 60. Have the Repubs need to get to 45 and make them actually have to filibuster it around the clock. Filibuster is way to easy to use right now.
I think I understand what it's modeled on, but I don't understand why anyone would actually concede the majority if they're actually the majority. If I had to hazard a guess I would just assume that in 2001 Dick Cheney simply wanted to just not be tied to Washington for a vote at a moments notice because he wanted to run the executive branch personally.
Yes. He wants the filibuster to stay in place so he can prevent the Democrats from getting anything done.
That is my concern, but I see your point. And additionally, I'd say if the Dem majority makes a play to reduce the vote threshold, they better go all in for 2 years and make damn sure people in this country understand how it benefits them.
The whole concept of a filibuster is dumb as hell. Nuke the shit out of it. The Dems can get rid of the filibuster and make DC a state to ensure a Senate majority in most of the upcoming elections.
I think there is a middle ground to do a baby nuke of it. Make it that it's harder to do and hold out on things someone here posted a good article as a way to return the spirit of it but make it harder to hold up up legislation.
How creative can the senate be with what happens with the filibuster? I think we need to have a spectrum, a spreadsheet of democratic senators from Machin to whoever is ready to nuke the filibuster yesterday against a spectrum of filibuster options that goes from outright removing the filibuster to various kinds of reform. Maybe someone who doesn't want to remove it completely could be onboard for requiring endless talking again, or removing it just for statehood or voting rights, or decreasing the number of senators down from 60 to some other number. What if every time the minority filibustered, the number of senators required before a vote decreased until 51 was all that was necessary? The pressure would then be on the minority to actually bring their debate, reasons, and logic for or against whatever the proposal. Regardless I feel like it would be the biggest failure to come away from all this with the filibuster status quo still intact.
As long as we use this opportunity to make the country more democratic I feel less scared about being in the minority without the filibuster. Instead of everything being blocked and no one knowing whether proposed bills were a good idea or a bad idea, how about actually doing stuff and then the people can judge whether it affected their lives for better or worse.
As long as we use this opportunity to make the country more democratic I feel less scared about being in the minority without the filibuster. Instead of everything being blocked and no one knowing whether proposed bills were a good idea or a bad idea, how about actually doing stuff and then the people can judge whether it affected their lives for better or worse.
They definitely should change the rules, at minimum.
The Senate is already antidemocratic by virtue of the way that it overrepresents small states and the filibuster only intensifies that by adding power to them. As others have said, it's also a lopsided power that favors an obstructionist party like the GOP and blocks legislative progress. If you literally have no agenda except to stonewall, of course you want it.
If the GOP had a slim majority and a law that it wanted to enact, no small rule would prevent them from enacting it so hand-wringing about what happens if power shifts is utterly misplaced in my eyes.
The Senate is already antidemocratic by virtue of the way that it overrepresents small states and the filibuster only intensifies that by adding power to them. As others have said, it's also a lopsided power that favors an obstructionist party like the GOP and blocks legislative progress. If you literally have no agenda except to stonewall, of course you want it.
If the GOP had a slim majority and a law that it wanted to enact, no small rule would prevent them from enacting it so hand-wringing about what happens if power shifts is utterly misplaced in my eyes.
Manchin might be more easily persuaded to amend the filibuster, than nuke it entirely. He has already come out against it. But give him some pork, and nerf the filibuster (instead of nuking it), might pull him in.
This sounds like the plan. A last desperate attempt for power and even just going by responses in this thread it's clear it might work since people don't get (and aren't being properly explained) what is actually happening. So even though Mitch is acting in bad faith, for a lot of people it might look like Dems blew up the filibuster immediately without even trying to work together.
This is correct and I can only hope they don't fall for such shenanigans ever again.
The best way to sort this out is for the Dems to bring bills that are popular which the filibuster nuke skeptics like Manchin and dare the GOP to use the filibuster. Because at that point those skeptics have to choose between whether they care more about the filibuster or about bills that help their constituents.
It is just amazing to me you can be as flat out evil as McConnell, and then hope your adversaries just give you the okay to continue being that evil.
Well, when your opposition is the Democratic party, sometimes it's just worth the gamble.
Ok, ok. I'm not American, but am trying to follow here.
So wait, currently they can filibuster without even having to do it? They just say 'Filibuster no take-backs' and it's the same as if they'd sat there reading the script to The Grinch for 12 hours? That seems insane.
Second question, it looks like for the last 4 years the GOP still had less than 60 senators, so how did they manage to pass anything without Dems 'filibustering' (but not even actually) everything they proposed?
How can you even have a functioning senate if you need a 60/40 majority to do anything, when that almost never happens in reality?
So wait, currently they can filibuster without even having to do it? They just say 'Filibuster no take-backs' and it's the same as if they'd sat there reading the script to The Grinch for 12 hours? That seems insane.
Second question, it looks like for the last 4 years the GOP still had less than 60 senators, so how did they manage to pass anything without Dems 'filibustering' (but not even actually) everything they proposed?
How can you even have a functioning senate if you need a 60/40 majority to do anything, when that almost never happens in reality?
The GOP used something called reconciliation to pass the single thing the achieved in the 2 years of power. It can only be used once and has limitations, but cannot be filibustered.
Beyond that, the GOP did nothing, which is fine by them. They are basically a party of obstruction and dismantling. The filibuster works for them because they don't want government to work and they just want to break things.
The filibuster needs to go. You're seeing it clearly. It's why it likely will.
Convict Trump and Schumer will promise not to nuke the filibuster.
...
until at least an hour has passed after Trump's conviction.
...
until at least an hour has passed after Trump's conviction.
So no more of these gems?
youtu.be
Bernie Sanders 8 1/2 hour Filibuster but it's Lofi
Bernie Sanders beats to study to/start a revolution toNew Bernie Lofi at 7K Subs!Twitter: https://twitter.com/MojoblitzYTPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/moj...
youtu.be
Well shit, I assumed there must have been more to it than just 4 years of clumsily signed executive orders, but apparently I was wrong.
