-
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.
WaPo: Fight over the filibuster grinds the Senate to a halt, imperiling Biden’s legislative agenda (UP: McConnell caves, standoff over)
- Thread starter Saucycarpdog
- Start date
- News
Some... many of these voters voted GOP down ticket in places... see Collins, Susan
Man, all that work getting the WH and senate and this is all dem voters get to show for it? RIP 2022
Give Manchin his fucking concessions for West Virginia already and stop holding the Senate ransom
Unfortunately as we saw in 2016 "you should see the other guy" doesn't always work.
Ok so if I understand this correctly, they created a rule to allow a minority to prevent the majority to rule. And I guess they realized their opposition wouldn't be as shitty as to use it constantly like they are doing (very telling that they started using it much more against Obama).
However, I want to think that Dems would have used it a lot against a monster like Trump thus now Republicans would be on board with removing the rule? Otherwise, what can Dems do?
Sinema and manchin are also calling McConnell's bluff by being so vocal to not nuking it. The pledge is if theres not enough dems to do it, mitch has even less reason to hold up process. If he continues to do so it only puts incredible pressure on senators like sinema/manchin to fold so anything can get done. Eventually they have to move forward if need be, Manchin/Sinema can blame the republicans for having to do so.
The question is how far does mitch push before hes seen as too unreasonable and loses them... Though dems taking that action could be the republican goal. They can blame the dems for a power grab, play victim in the minority (wheres "bidens unity") and when/if they do acquire power move forward without the filibuster, something the R's have abused or weakened as they've seen fit anyway.
The question is how far does mitch push before hes seen as too unreasonable and loses them... Though dems taking that action could be the republican goal. They can blame the dems for a power grab, play victim in the minority (wheres "bidens unity") and when/if they do acquire power move forward without the filibuster, something the R's have abused or weakened as they've seen fit anyway.
I think Manchin, Sinema, and are just like the GOP. They don't want to do the hard work of governing, they just want to be the minority obstructionist party and have it easy.
Trump was the second most filibustered president. The only major partisan bills pubs passed were through reconciliation which only requires a simple majority but has restrictions.
"When it comes down to it, it's just for show and he always votes blue" Yet...here we are
Republicans don't want the filibuster nuked even when they are in power because they only want to get rid of legislation (or prevent new legislation). Democrats ask for their representatives to point to successful legislation that was passed. If they can't then they are deemed ineffective and their voters won't turn out support. Meanwhile a GOP term is considered successful based on stopping new legislation. That can be accomplished either by holding power or, in its absence, just preserving the filibuster.
So it is far, far, far easier for a republican to be considered successful at their job than a democrat.
Why did you expect that? A 50-50 party split (with VP tie breaker) is not the path for major progressive breakthroughs.
EDIT- people really have short memories. After the general election the narrative was "oh, wouldn't it be a miracle if we get the two Senate seats in the GA runoff? Probably won't be much progressive legislation but at least we get committee leaderships, judicial appointments, cabinet confirmations, and budget reconciliations." Now everyone is up in arms because they can't get the Green New Deal.
I am in Arizona and voted for Sinema so I also sent her an email demanding that she end the filibuster. I'm not worried about Kelly but it couldn't hurt for me to email him either.i wrote manchin and sinema too, and requested replies.
i'm not from their states so they might cut me off as not being a constituent. but i'll also contact my senators (ca).
Email Joe | U.S. Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia
The Official U.S. Senate website of Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginiawww.manchin.senate.gov
Contact Kyrsten | Senator Kyrsten Sinema
www.sinema.senate.gov
What are the numbers here, is it really only two holdouts? Or just the two who have been public bout their opinion so far?
Edit: gd internet hold up
Edit: I don't want to get into a semantic argument over what our individual operating definition of "progressive" means--I was merely expressing relief at the idea of any Democrat-supported legislation being passed, which has been largely absent in recent years
Last edited:
There are others who are opposed to the filibuster ending but at least said they'd reconsider it. Sinema and Manchin are the focus because they outright said that they're opposed to the filibuster ending and will never change their minds.
It's not even about super progressive stuff like GND. It's about the Voting Rights Act, minimum wage increase, DC statehood. Things that are hugely popular across a wide swathe of Americans. These aren't progressive wet dreams, these should've been slam dunks even with just 50 + 1.
But with the filibuster remaining none of that gets done.
At the end of the day nuking the filibuster gives the people better representation in the Senate during times when Democrats are in power and for the times when that's not the case Republicans weren't going to compromise anyway.
Something like the Stimulus can be address through budget reconciliation which is filibuster proof.
Nah, only two. The third most likely, Tester, basically stated he'd nuke it if pubs block everything and most other Senators are parroting the "Jim Crow filibuster" line.
Either way, I wasn't thinking an outright nuking of it was likely, reform was more likely, still disappointing. Here's hoping McConnell filibustering the organizing resolution changes some minds.
Probably will take a few weeks.
I'm hoping this is to give cover for nuking the filibuster next week. It's absolutely unacceptable to hold up the work of the people to entrench minority bad faith obstruction.
We're still having this debate 12 years after Obama was elected. The filibuster has done NOTHING to encourage bipartisanship. In fact, it's done the opposite, it's been used as a tool to sabotage and remove accountability.
We're still having this debate 12 years after Obama was elected. The filibuster has done NOTHING to encourage bipartisanship. In fact, it's done the opposite, it's been used as a tool to sabotage and remove accountability.
This shit is unbearable. These morons mock the hard and tireless work of those who got us the majority.
That's not true though- if it was a slam dunk then the filibuster would be nuked. Manchin and Sinema know exactly what initiatives won't happen if they won't support filibuster rule changes. They are basically voting against all three initiatives and they know that.
Bernie will find that money and work it out in budget reconciliation.
handshake/gentleman's deal incoming? a lot of this hinges on principle and understanding from two very different view points. some sort of agreement with a few dems offering a verbal objection could at least get mitch to stop blocking the dems from assuming their majority.
How is this not still a rule? Like, really, when did this change so that it wasn't a requirement?
You're giving too much credit to this system by suggesting that someone deliberately created the rule to do this.
The history of the filibuster in the Senate is pretty simple. The original Senate rules contained a motion that amounted to majority cloture, the thing we're talking about restoring by eliminating the filibuster. However, the first few sessions of the Senate never used the procedure because everyone basically agreed "OK, fine, we're done debating, let's just vote", never having debate used as an obstructionist tactic. In 1806, a revision was made to the Senate rules, and the majority cloture rule was removed from the rulebook because it was never used and therefore considered not necessary. With that decision, the Senate opened the possibility for a single senator to obstruct the business of the Senate. It was never a deliberate decision, it was just a boneheaded decision in 1806 that created a loophole because somehow no one figured out that the rules need to handle bad faith operators.
It wasn't until 1917 that there was any way for the entire rest of the chamber to make a single Senator stop obstructing the business of the Senate, and at this point people had already basically normalized the filibuster as Tradition instead of an aberration created by some short-sighted legislators, so you got the cloture rules that prioritized the anti-democratic filibuster.
Manchin and Sinema gave Rs cover to give in a tiny bit.
Now to rewrite filibuster rules and get to work.
It was never a requirement. Mr. Smith Goes To Washington is fiction.
All the filibuster has ever been is an abuse of the concept of floor debate. The Senate rules. between 1806 and 1917, contained no way to formally end debate on a measure, which meant that it could only happen if everyone agreed "yeah, we're done debating". You don't have to stand on the floor and give speeches, debate doesn't have a real definition, it's just a period that continues until everyone decides it's over. Those big speeches from people where they stand on the Senate floor and talk for hours is because those people know that the media will pay attention to stunts like "Senator gives 12 hour speech from the Senate floor" and they want to publicize just how dedicated their opposition is. All the filibuster actually ever required is for one person in opposition to camp out on the Senate floor and be there to object to unanimous consent requests.
The talking filibuster definitely does exist in some legislative bodies, but it really never has in the US Senate. Between 1806 and 1917, you never had to give a big endless speech, all you ever had to do was be present to object, although you could give that lengthy speech from the floor if you wanted to. Post-1917, a supermajority of Senators can invoke cloture to set a cap on the remaining amount of debate, and they do not need to wrest the floor from you in order to do so, so the talking filibuster isn't effective there either.
Not sure. Manchin sounded pretty unequivocal about it, though you can't really trust anything that comes out of his mouth. We'll see.
people expected that Biden would at least be able to have a decent chance in making at least half of his agenda become solidified in law by voting in record numbers during a fucking pandemic, twice, and not 2 to 4 more years of this "lol Mitch" bullshit and fuckery
Democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory possibly? Find out next time on Failed Democracy Z!
How utterly predictable it is when they're already face planting left and right to do anything and still playing by the rules when the Republicans threw away every single thing they could the minute it impeded their goals. It's always been a simple equation. Dems actually help people and they stand a chance at not getting annihilated in the midterms, they don't help people and don't use the tools given to them to try to enact the things they promised, they get devastatingly blown out.
Hell, before Biden was even sworn in they were blowing good will from Georgian voters with the whole, well actually, we meant $1400 on top of the $600 people already got, not $2000.
It's a pandemic that honestly doesn't have a meaningful end point in sight and economically things are going to get a lot harder on people around the country. There's not to going to be a lot of good will left by 2022 for Dems if they've just let McConnell walk all over them yet again. You aren't going to be winning over many voters with a nuanced conversation of the filibuster and how it prevented you from doing necessary things, people are just going to hold the Dems accountable for it period.