Page 1 of 7 123456 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 134

Thread: The Filibuster - Kill It for the Good of Democracy

  1. #1

    The Filibuster - Kill It for the Good of Democracy


  2. #2

  3. #3
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    The question is will Manchin have the balls to do the right thing. I doubt it.

  4. #4
    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.

  5. #5
    Oh shit Jon Favreau wants to get rid of it? That changes everything.

  6. #6
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    119,872
    Quote Originally Posted by Deaconblue View Post
    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.
    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.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by WakeBored View Post
    Oh shit Jon Favreau wants to get rid of it? That changes everything.
    Youíre thinking of the wrong Favreau dipshit.
    Hungry

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by DeaconCav06 View Post
    Youíre thinking of the wrong Favreau dipshit.
    I am? That's not Obama's speechwriter?

  9. #9
    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.

  10. #10

  11. #11
    WTF is Schumer still majority leader?

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by WFFaithful View Post
    WTF is Schumer still majority leader?
    the Democrats don't do shit as the minority party, and as soon as they take over Schumer will get his lunch eaten by McConnell who is all-time QB for the Senate

  13. #13

  14. #14
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    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.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by WFFaithful View Post
    WTF is Schumer still majority leader?
    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.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by ipitytheblue View Post
    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.


    Yep
    I love mankind...itís people I canít stand!!

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by ipitytheblue View Post
    With the filibuster, what impetus is there to ever work together?
    Umm, the threat of a filibuster? Iím just spitballing here.

  18. #18
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    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.

  19. #19
    It seems clear that in the hands of a Republican minority itís 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.
    I love mankind...itís people I canít stand!!

  20. #20
    In April 2017, in the wake of Pubs getting rid of the filibuster for SCOTUS justices--which they did in response to the Dems getting rid of the filibuster for circuit judges in 2013--a bipartisan group of 61 Senators sent a letter to their respective party leaders advocating for the retention of the filibuster more generally. The letter was signed by 32 Dems, including Chris Coons (D-DE), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Mark Warner (D-VA), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Bob Casey (D-PA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Kamala Harris (D-CA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), and Bob Menendez (D-NJ).

    Getting rid of the filibuster for circuit judges didn't work out so well for the Dems--yes, they got their 3 DC Circuit judges, but their antics resulted in them being unable to filibuster Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and, worst of all, Barrett. Politics are cyclical, of course, but the Dems are now banking on being able to make structural changes to our government designed to keep themselves in power--statehood for DC/PR, 15 SCOTUS judges--and create massive bureaucratic and social changes that will act like a one-way ratchet that would take too much political capital to undo when the Pubs come back into power--like M4A, $15 minimum wage, etc.

    For the past 4 years, the drumbeat from the Dems has been how the Pubs just wanted naked power. Whether true or not, turns out that accusation was a bit of a projection, and, in light of the Dems' about face from April 2017, a good reminder that there is no moral high ground in politics.
    Last edited by WakeBored; 01-23-2021 at 01:38 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •