The Filibuster - Kill It for the Good of Democracy

WakeForestRanger

WakeForestRanger

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 17, 2011
Messages
22,959
Reaction score
1,202
The question is will Manchin have the balls to do the right thing. I doubt it.
 
One reason filibusters have gotten so powerful is that they don't have to be implemented to stop a bill. Just declare the filibuster, and the bill suddenly needs 60 votes. It is no longer necessary to actually have Senators talk.

Also, other business proceeds while the filibuster is occurring. Having Senators talk interminably on CSPAN might limit filibusters.
 
Deaconblue said:
One reason filibusters have gotten so powerful is that they don't have to be implemented to stop a bill. Just declare the filibuster, and the bill suddenly needs 60 votes. It is no longer necessary to actually have Senators talk.

Also, other business proceeds while the filibuster is occurring. Having Senators talk interminably on CSPAN might limit filibusters.
Click to expand...

Threatening Ted Cruz and the like with having to talk for hours with the full attention of conservative media doesn't seem like a great strategy.

Better to make it clear to the American people that Republicans have no interest in governing. End the filibuster and pass bills the people want. Run on those accomplishments and win elections.
 
With the filibuster, what impetus is there to ever work together? Without it, perhaps the minority would be forced to come to the table and collaborate on a law that will be passed one way or another.

I often wish the GOP had acted like a responsible minority party during the formation of the ACA; i.e. "We can't prevent this so we're going to work with you to make sure it's a good bill that also represents our interests." Instead, they spent the entire time trying to submarine it even though it was originally a conservative proposition. At which point, Obama should have withdrawn it and said "Fine, we're just going to do the public option." But, alas.
 
Although the GOP won't think about it, if they don't allow the filibuster to die, in 2022, if the Dems take even a 51-50 lead, they should balls to the walls and pass everything the GOP doesn't want.

Of course for decades, Dems haven't shown the cajones they were born with and have constantly runaway from Republicans. They need to get off their candy-asses and treat the GOP the way they treat Dems.
 
WFFaithful said:
WTF is Schumer still majority leader?
Click to expand...

That's the real question - likely seniority and status-quo thinking at work. As minority leader he's been worthless and McConnell runs circles around him pretty much every session. Now that he's majority leader he really needs to step it up, but he likely won't. Chris Christie said recently that Schumer was a "tough" guy and and a "hammer" who would ram legislation down the Republican's throat if they weren't careful, and I couldn't help but laugh, as that description describes McConnell far more than it does Schumer. Based on his record thus far he's a wuss with little to no spine or stomach for serious fights in the Senate, and I think that McConnell will often still call the shots in this session. If that happens at least Schumer's ineptitude will be exposed for all to see.
 
ipitytheblue said:
With the filibuster, what impetus is there to ever work together? Without it, perhaps the minority would be forced to come to the table and collaborate on a law that will be passed one way or another.

I often wish the GOP had acted like a responsible minority party during the formation of the ACA; i.e. "We can't prevent this so we're going to work with you to make sure it's a good bill that also represents our interests." Instead, they spent the entire time [lying like hell about it, demonizing it, etc.] even though it was originally a conservative proposition. At which point, Obama should have withdrawn it and said "Fine, we're just going to do the public option." But, alas.
Click to expand...



Yep
 
There's no legitimate reason to have a filibuster. If you can't win an election, there's no justification for you or your party to be able to control legislation.
 
It seems clear that in the hands of a Republican minority it’s not a tool that facilitates good or better governance.

Therefore, it seems quite appropriate to get rid of it, if possible.

Fault your own dishonest, destructive and scorched-earth opposition, Pubs.
 
Not buying both-siding this.


It’s worth considering which party is striving to actually govern reasonably well and which seems to have no clue or interest in this. Seeking power by utterly dishonest politicking, gerrymandering and voter-suppression for minority rule, embracing reflexive obstructionism and dishonest/destructive myths as guiding principles should hopefully result in folks coming together to keep Republicans out of power as much as possible.

They’ve earned these efforts and I hope there’s growing appreciation for the need to remove and keep them from power and influence until they can embody a more honest and honorable ethos.


Sure, removing minority party powers can and will hurt Democrats when they’re in the minority. Therefore, since Republicans have proven they don’t either understand or give a damn about good governance, every reasonable effort to keep them out of power and influence is appropriate.

I wish this were not so, but it is.
 
You’d think the last several years would make it clear that Republicans do not compromise especially on judges and justices. Obama tried with Garland and got completely stonewalled. Republicans are bad faith actors who have no desire or plan to govern even when they have power.

Look at this discussion of “unity.” Republicans spent two months declining to unite and accept that the country elected a longtime centrist known for his desire to make deals across the aisle in order to get things done. They aren’t going to budge on any issues. They’re job is to keep things as bad as possible to improve their chances in 2022.
 
WakeBored said:
Lol

I’m not both-siding anything. I’m one-siding it: the Dems—alone—are trying to get rid of the filibuster in a craven effort to retain power. You’re the one both-siding this.
Click to expand...

You are both-siding a grasp for power.

But I'm saying it's not altogether the same thing because I think it matters why each party wants power and what they will likely do with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top