Sounds like Pelosi and her... we have more arrows in the quiver comment. That lead nowhere.
-
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.
Senate Republicans have blocked debate on voting rights legislation
- Thread starter GK86
- Start date
Sounds like Pelosi and her... we have more arrows in the quiver comment. That lead nowhere.
We need to push harder to make sure they put their money where their mouth is.
I still don't understand why the threat of a filibuster can make it so they can't debate the bill. The Republicans should have to get up there, put their money where their mouth is and actually stand there forever holding up the debate.
Agreed.
And, frankly, we should be playing dirty pool whenever possible. Like, call recess, wait for all the Republicans to fly home, and then hold votes, that kind of shit. I'm so unbelievably tired of the Dems not going for the throat.
My understanding is that it basically goes like this:
Many Senators: "Let's pass this popular bill."
One opposing Senator: "Hold on, we're not done talking about that yet. You can't do that until I'm done debating it, and I am going to talk forever! Ha!"
Many Senators: "This nonsense has been happening a lot lately. New rule: if 60% of us agree that we've heard enough and we know how we will vote, then we can just end the debate and move on."
LATER
Modern Democrats: "Let's pass this popular bill."
Modern Republicans: "Hold on, we're not done talking about that yet. You can't do that until I'm done debating it."
Democrats: "Okay, let's talk."
Republicans: "No thanks, I don't really have anything to say about this. Nobody does, really."
Democrats: "Then let's vote."
Republicans: "You can't. Debate isn't over."
Democrats: "But no one is talking. There is clearly no more debate."
Republicans: "You can' t just decide that on your own! We have a rule for that! It takes 60% of us to agree that the debate is over, and we say it's not. So no vote."
That last step is where it gets insane. The rule was made with relatively good intentions, but you can see how it's deeply flawed. The party that uses the filibuster doesn't actually have to stand and speak. They just have to insist that they haven't heard enough. That's all it takes to block virtually anything, forever, unless it's something that the filibuster arbitrarily doesn't apply to.
That doesn't work. To break the filibuster, you need 60% of all Senators, including the ones who didn't bother to show up.
The one saving grace here is that Senate rule changes are one of those things that can't be filibustered. So even though it takes 60 votes to be allowed to vote on anything, that fact can be changed by a simple majority. If only those last two Democratic Senators could be convinced to do it.
I wasn't suggesting that as a means of breaking the filibuster, but as a general strategy for nullifying GOP votes once the Dem holdouts find their courage and eliminate it.
I don't think the superme court will save us, especially not on stuff like voting rights.
The current wave of voter surpression laws is a direct result of the Roberts court gutting the VRA.
I am not saying fall into despair, but hoping that a 6-3 conservtive court will stop the GOP takeover of the American democracy is dangerous wishful thinking. We can't have inaction on this because we are facing a real serious possibility of the Republican party entrenching themselves in a way that I am not sure how we unfuck.
Yes, this was always the path. Schumer has said in interviews that this would be the timeline... basically that they had to show that they were giving bipartisanship a real try to convince centrists.
Here's a source for one from April 30:
Transcript: Ezra Klein Interviews Chuck Schumer - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
I'm not defending these tactics or this pussyfooting, but it was more than clearly telegraphed by Schumer.
I don't know how you can misread that like that... especially the part about me not defending Schumer's approach.
He had to bring it to the floor to prove to centrist Democrats where Republicans stand (or to prove to the American people that compromise isn't happening). Today's vote is ammunition for making the argument for filibuster reform.
Misread... this?
Schumer said:
So by his own standards they have already failed.
Believe it when I see it. Its super fun having important things be brought out just to prove that Republicans are sociopaths.
He wasn't saying he has to pass S1 by June. Just that it needs to pass. Don't quote my post again on this.
I don't want an argument about this because you are (rightfully) angry at the Senate. I am not defending anything.
Right and I'll believe it when I see it when it comes to be voted on again.
User Warned: Antagonizing another member.
I asked you not to quote me, so onto ignore list you go.
So why do we make these threads? Everyone knew this was going to be the outcome. Unless you are oblivious to the system, Manchin and Sinema have put their foot down on this issue and people are still acting like there is some possibility. No removal of the filibuster.
There is no plan when republicans have control due to Mitch and his crew. Covid help was plan all along. Now we wait for 2022
There is no plan when republicans have control due to Mitch and his crew. Covid help was plan all along. Now we wait for 2022
People keep giving up on the bill but this outcome was always part of the plan. The dems were already planning for fillibuster reform once this falls and I see the scenario already playing out: the fillibuster becomes a talking one (once again) and once the 50 vote threshold is reached, they pass Manchin's compromise bill, which is not perfect but hits the FTPA's main points and is acceptable to all 50 dems. I just hope it happens before the end of the summer.
The thing to understand, and EllipsisBreak 's post here gets to, is that in the US Senate debate is not an action, it's a state.
In this case, they're in a state of debate about whether or not to debate the bill. (Yes, really.) In order to bring a bill formally to the floor for debate, the Senate must vote to bring the bill to the floor, and whether or not to bring the bill to the floor is a debatable motion. So what happened in the vote this thread is about is that Republicans are saying that they're not ready to end the debate about whether to bring this bill for debate. They're not required to debate it, and never have been in the history of the US Senate. Debate is not an action in the Senate, it's a state, and therefore you can keep the Senate stuck in the debate state infinitely without 60 votes ready to shut down the debate, at least since the 1806 removal of the original Senate rule that allowed a majority to close debate.
And I know I kinda harp on this, but I should say again: the talking filibuster has never been required in the US Senate. It's a thing in some legislatures across the US and in other countries, but the US Senate's filibuster does not and never has required anyone to stand up and just keep talking to stall floor action. Anyone who did so did so for publicity, not out of necessity. Mr. Smith Goes To Washington is fiction, folks.
Yeah, this probably isn't going to work. All that's needed for the GOP is for them to keep a single member present in DC to shut this down, and I guarantee you they've got contingencies for that.
If you tried this, you'd almost certainly have 1 Republican remain around, and all that person needs to do is 2 things:
- Object to unanimous consent to proceed, which maintains the filibuster by not allowing the Senate to move on from debate
- Suggest the absence of a quorum. The Senate is technically not allowed to operate without 51 Senators present on the floor, and while it often does, it does only in entirely non-controversial ways. If there's any disagreement about what's going on, a member of the minority will suggest the absence of a quorum, which stops the Senate from doing anything until they take roll and find out that there's definitively a majority of the members present on the physical Senate floor.
These also happen to be the reasons why marathon Senate sessions are not really effective at breaking a filibuster.
I agree you need to play hardball as much as you can, I'm just suggesting that the Senate's rules make that particular tactic very ineffective unless you can catch them completely unaware.
Last edited:
When their base votes for and defends them regardless, why would they?
Most of these people are wealthy...they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by sitting back and letting this happen
Yeah, that's more of a suggestion for after we break the filibuster (if we ever do). And I guess we need 51 total senators for quorum? But, beyond that specific tactic, I just want to see Dems, to be frank, cheat more. They should be exploiting every loophole and using every unfair, mean-spirited, duplicitous move at their disposal to deny the GOP a say in anything. But we have performative idiots like Manchin and Sinema (among others) out there fighting for compromise with a party that would happily feed them into a wood chipper if given the chance.
It's so insanely frustrating.
No shit. As soon as we learned how slim the margins in the senate were going to be and as soon as those fuckos came out against doing anything about the filibuster this was decided. We shall see if all the talk about this being part of the plan pans out. I have my doubts and personally believe that talk is just the dem version of "Don't worry guys, Trump has a plan just you wait and see."
I wish there was something to suggest the opposite, but there has been no signs of even real urgency for this. It should have been a day 1 assault/attempt. You'd think it would have been, as, well, its all of their future careers down the drain if they don't do anything, along with the country.
But my money is on wealthy people don't have a dog in the fight, most of them will be fine under new white supremacy rule so they don't even think its an issue, really, just noise from the POC in the nation who to them, are likely always bitching about something you know? Thats how im seeing the sinemas of the nation. Theres nothing funny or cute about any of this stuff. Let alone minimum wage for the slave class -- But, here we are.
Definitely hope this works. Would be a shame if we have to riot to get anything done.
You need 51 Senators to maintain the quorum, yes. However, it's notable that you don't need 51 Senators to transact business so long as no one present is going to say "hey, I don't think we have 51 here".
So if you managed to leave the chamber open for business and then 25 members of the Senate got onto the floor and started taking action via unanimous consent, they can continue with that so long as no one there objects to the fact that there's not 51 present. And unanimous consent is powerful, you can legit pass legislation without a formal roll call vote via unanimous consent.
I would really love if that could be used somehow. And based on how lazy GOP Senators are, I think it could theoretically be done. Even without that nuclear option, though, I would just like to see something that indicates the Dems were trying as hard as the GOP.
Dems literally never play 4D chess so no idea where this is coming from. They always disappoint.
No it's not. You only need 50 + Kamala. Dems just have to be united to end it.
And we only need 10 Republicans with it.
Both are not possible.
It is not possible to get rid of the filibuster because we do not have the votes.
McConnell lays down a gauntlet to get his people in line and vote the way he wants them to. The only time it hasn't worked is when McCain was on his death bed and concerned with his legacy. I've seen the Democratic party put zero pressure on Manchin/Sinema like McConnell does publicly to his people. Next I'm sure you'll tell me they'll just give up their Democratic beliefs and turn Republican if pressured.
There is no magical "pressure" that can be exerted upon Manchin and Sinema to make them change their minds. This is a fantasy that people use as an excuse to blame "The Democrats" because they can't stop grinding that axe.
Agreed. There has been considerable pressure from Dems on their colleagues to eliminate the fillibuster however. Besides, we also know nothing about what is going on behind closed doors.
How do you know pressure can or can't be applied? It's never been tried! Also, that leaked call with the rich Republican group and Manchin shows bribes will work with him. Seems like that's something maybe the rich Democratic donor groups should try. Instead Biden gave his wife a position in the admin to make money and he sits on some powerful committees in the Senate without getting anything in return. That's giving up negotiation power. The only story that's come out about Biden and Manchin is Manchin saying he's felt zero pressure from Biden to do anything.