• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

The Filibuster - Kill It for the Good of Democracy

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
It's pretty disingenuous to act as if the Dems getting rid of the filibuster for circuit justices was some unprompted norm-breaking, when the real norm breaking was McConnell's unprecedented obstructing of Obama's nominees. It's also willfully naive to act as if Republicans would not have nuked the filibuster for Gorsuch if the Dems hadn't nuked it for the circuit court justices.
 
LOOK AT THOSE CRAVEN DEMS WHO WANT TO NUKE THE FILIBUSTER TO MAINTAIN A FUNCTIONING GOVERNMENT AND HELP REGULAR AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!!! #BENGHAZI!!!!!!!!
 
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.

The frustration is that the Dems with their slim majority in the house and in the senate represent 10s of millions more people than the pubs with their slim minority. In congressional races tallied up across the country the Dems regularly get 10+ million more votes than Pubs and Dems have won the popular vote in all but one presidential election since 1988...yet we are still ruled by the minority. The 50 Republican senators, representing, I think, 47 million fewer people than the 50 dem senators, will block the entire Democratic agenda. What the hell kind of a system is that? We are not talking about grabbing naked power, we are talking introducing some semblance of equitable representation of power in the federal government.
 
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.

The reason the Democrats ended the filibuster for lower-court federal judges was because the Republicans under McConnell were filibustering and delaying the appointment of said judges. What else should the Democrats have done so that a President could fulfill his function to appoint federal judges? Compromise? McConnell has always made clear that he has never had any interest in compromising with Democrats. Contrary to Republican claims that Democrats set a precedent, there was no precedent for Republicans under McConnell to raise the stakes and end the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices - which I think you would agree is rather more severe than removing the filibuster for lower-court judges. I'm wondering how Obama and Democrats could have filled all those lower court vacancies without removing the filibuster. One reason there were so many vacancies to be filled under Trump was because McConnell and Senate Republicans had dragged their feet on filling vacancies.
 
It's pretty disingenuous to act as if the Dems getting rid of the filibuster for circuit justices was some unprompted norm-breaking, when the real norm breaking was McConnell's unprecedented obstructing of Obama's nominees. It's also willfully naive to act as if Republicans would not have nuked the filibuster for Gorsuch if the Dems hadn't nuked it for the circuit court justices.

^This. Republicans always seem to leave out that little nugget - the ending of the filibuster for lower-court judges was due to McConnell and the GOP's unprecedented filibustering and foot-dragging on said nominees.
 
The frustration is that the Dems with their slim majority in the house and in the senate represent 10s of millions more people than the pubs with their slim minority. In congressional races tallied up across the country the Dems regularly get 10+ million more votes than Pubs and Dems have won the popular vote in all but one presidential election since 1988...yet we are still ruled by the minority. The 50 Republican senators, representing, I think, 47 million fewer people than the 50 dem senators, will block the entire Democratic agenda. What the hell kind of a system is that? We are not talking about grabbing naked power, we are talking introducing some semblance of equitable representation of power in the federal government.

The reason the Democrats ended the filibuster for lower-court federal judges was because the Republicans under McConnell were filibustering and delaying the appointment of said judges. What else should the Democrats have done so that a President could fulfill his function to appoint federal judges? Compromise? McConnell has always made clear that he has never had any interest in compromising with Democrats. Contrary to Republican claims that Democrats set a precedent, there was no precedent for Republicans under McConnell to raise the stakes and end the filibuster for Supreme Court Justices - which I think you would agree is rather more severe than removing the filibuster for lower-court judges. I'm wondering how Obama and Democrats could have filled all those lower court vacancies without removing the filibuster. One reason there were so many vacancies to be filled under Trump was because McConnell and Senate Republicans had dragged their feet on filling vacancies.


Yep.
 
^This. Republicans always seem to leave out that little nugget - the ending of the filibuster for lower-court judges was due to McConnell and the GOP's unprecedented filibustering and foot-dragging on said nominees.

And Dems always seem to leave out the little nugget that the filibuster was not a part of the confirmation process until they started doing it in 2002.
 
And Dems always seem to leave out the little nugget that the filibuster was not a part of the confirmation process until they started doing it in 2002.

And yet it was Republicans who filibustered Obama lower-court nominees to leave those seats vacant, thus requiring an end to said filibuster to get lower-court nominees appointed, and it was Republicans who ended the filibuster for Supreme Court justices and voted them onto the court in almost record time - especially in the case of Barrett. Your side continues to ignore those points, which are what is relevant to the argument here. Nice way to try to change the subject.
 
Last edited:
And Dems always seem to leave out the little nugget that the filibuster was not a part of the confirmation process until they started doing it in 2002.

BFD. It's like a child crying "But Mom, he started it!"

The GOP has shown that they will do anything to maintain power. The Democrats need to use every available opportunity to do the same.
 
BFD. It's like a child crying "But Mom, he started it!"

The GOP has shown that they will do anything to maintain power. The Democrats need to use every available opportunity to do the same.

If Dems didn't start it, it wouldn't have gotten started. Do you see how that works? If you're looking for the root cause of the breakdown of the system, that's where you look. At the start. And that's on the Dems.
 
If Dems didn't start it, it wouldn't have gotten started. Do you see how that works? If you're looking for the root cause of the breakdown of the system, that's where you look. At the start. And that's on the Dems.

Plus they hurt Bork’s feelings and stuff !
 
If Dems didn't start it, it wouldn't have gotten started. Do you see how that works? If you're looking for the root cause of the breakdown of the system, that's where you look. At the start. And that's on the Dems.

Republicans started not participating in governing. Republicans started not working with the other side or the White House. They’re still doing it. They keep ignoring the will of the people as demonstrated in elections to the point where they denied the election results for two months.

If Mitch McConnell did a AITA, you’d probably call him an asshole. But in the world of team politics, you can’t see it.
 
Last edited:
Plus they hurt Bork’s feelings and stuff !

Just because Bork supported private, racist and sexist clubs, doesn't mean he would just those issues fairly on the Supreme Court.

Just because when no one else would carry out the Saturday Night Massacre for Nixon and Bork would doesn't mean he doesn't understand what's right and what's wrong. This alone should have made it impossible to nominate hm.
 
Back
Top