And so it begins ..Dianne Feinstein comes out against Scotus expansion and elimination of Filibuster

[Le Roi de Pot]

https://www.newsweek.com/democrats-dianne-feinstein-packing-supreme-court-1533447

Democrats have reacted with anger after Senator Dianne Feinstein appeared to dismiss the idea of ending the filibuster and expanding the Supreme Court.

Feinstein was asked about abolishing the filibuster which allows a senator to hold up the passage of legislation by speaking for hours at a time. The California Democrat ruled out getting rid of the filibuster as part of an effort to pack the Supreme Court.

"I don't believe in doing that. I think the filibuster serves a purpose. It is not often used, it's often less used now than when I first came, and I think it's part of the Senate that differentiates itself," Feinstein said.

NBC News national political reporter Sahil Kapur pointed out on Twitter that the use of cloture motions in the Senate has significantly increased since the mid 1990s.

[kwolf68]

1. Not a fan

Ill just leave it at that.

[Binkie The Clown]

2. I'm proud to be a liberal. Not so proud sometimes to be a Dem. nt

[demosincebirth]

70. I was raised in a union household and always been proud to be a Democrat and going on 81 years.

[Fiendish Thingy]

3. Past her best by date, hope she retires in 2022, if not, primary her. Nt

[wryter2000]

4. It's not often used?

Only because we never made the Republicans do it. They killed all sorts of bills under Obama by merely threatening to filibuster.

[maxsolomon]

26. Cloture, OTOH

was invoked a record number of times.

DF, please retire in 2022 (or sooner). YOU'RE 87.

[MoonRiver]

5. Who cares?

[liskddksil]

6. When they go low, Diane wants us to lay down like a wet noodle nt

[jimfields33]

7. Hopefully she's just saying this so trump can't use it as an election

Campaign issue. I think it’s best not to have either one mentioned until January.

[lame54]

34. Not possible...Biden will be asked this 1000 times...

Before Nov. 3rd no matter how well he answers it the first time

[Autumn]

8. Who cares what she says. Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way. nt

[OneBro]

43. Because it empowers the opposition.

If Democratic leaders are again conceding without so much as a kerfuffle, republicans will step on the gas without fear of reprisal.

[Autumn]

49. After we take our government back there can be no conceding. Any Dem that does, the party leadership

must let them know they are on their own. Business as usual is over.

[OneBro]

51. Agreed.

[dsc]

74. because she will be one of the Democrats in what he hope

will be a majority come January. Even if we have a great election we will have at most 53 Democrats. We would need 50 to get rid of the filibuster. We could only lose two more.

[Autumn]

78. Did you miss that she's against the expansion of the SC and the elimination of the Filibuster?

We won't have a majority when a sitting Dem is against what needs to be done.

[dsc]

84. That would be my point

That is why she makes the number go down

[dsc]

85. That would be my point

That is why she makes the number go down

[BlueTsunami2018]

9. Why give them an easy thing to run against?

And worse, allow them free reign to do whatever they want when they keep/regain the Senate?

I think this was a smart thing to say. Like saying you’re against defunding the police.

[Midnightwalk]

10. Not often used?

Does she mean in the past four years? Maybe she can think of a reason for that. Then again, probably not.

[EarlG]

11. I don't think

Dianne Feinstein represents the future direction of the Democratic Party.

[Thekaspervote]

12. Killing the filibuster is the only way. We have maybe 2 years to get a lot done

With the obstructionist pukes nothing will happen.

She will have to come around or be left behind

[roamer65]

13. California, you do have better than this woman to run in 2022...right?

If so, please do.

[shanti]

40. We've tried

[Bettie]

62. Maybe she'll retire?

I mean she's as old as Chuck Grassley, isn't she? At some point they have to let it go and get someone new in there.

ETA: She is 86, he is 87. I know people don't like talking about how old people are, but jeez.

[dalton99a]

14. Is she paying attention at all anymore?

WTF

[FarPoint]

15. California needs to encourage her to retire...

I don't like her rhetoric.

[Jose Garcia]

24. They just reelected her two years ago

[regnaD kciN]

16. So did Tim Kaine...

You think this is going to help voter turnout? “We promise to use every arrow in our quiver…once we’ve dumped them all in the trash.”



And now, I’m seeing a talking point on Twitter that we need to vote for Biden (which, obviously, we should anyway), because it will be the difference between a 7-2 conservative majority on SCOTUS and a 5-4 conservative majority on SCOTUS. Guess what, genius? We lose either way.

[Cerridwen]

17. And just last week newsweek was a r/w rag.

[Statistical]

22. Well it still is but even a rw rag is right sometimes.

[dutch777]

18. Certainly points to be debated and weighed

But I agree with the sentiment that Feinstein, indeed all the gerontocracy of the Dem party, needs to be retired. I am in that age group myself and while there is something to be said for the tried and true, there is also merit to renewal and change to allow progress. It seems we sometimes miss in legislative matters, especially as it relates to procedural rules of the House and Senate, that changes can be made and if they turn out to not be beneficial, they can be changed again. I think if Trump proved nothing else it is there is more malleability at the Federal level than most of us realize...or like. Its the Dems turn to use that to advantage.

[OneBro]

45. Gerontocracy

Just when I thought I knew all the best words, you've introduced me to another.

[dutch777]

88. Glad I could help

and generally, although not always, gerontocracy can be translated to mean old white guys....at least in the political world...and maybe in the Catholic church.

[dawg day]

19. Let's get Joe elected and worry about the rest later

Don't spook the voters with complicated changes. Win the election now, and everything is possible later.

[Autumn]

50. Nope. Let's worry about it now and make it clear what's it's going to be. We go down that route the

excuse will be the voters didn't vote for this. Voter's aren't going to be spooked. Voters are pissed. As they should be.

[Midnight Writer]

20. The modern filibuster does not "allow a senator to hold up...by speaking for hours".

The current filibuster allows any individual senator to kill legislation with a minority vote.

I have no problem with a regular filibuster. It should be retained.

It is the "filibuster" rule adopted in the 70s that has to go.

[budkin]

21. Time to Primary her

She’s done enough.

[still_one]

23. We MUST NOT get distracted by this bullshit right now. If we win the WH, and both

Houses of Congress, we WILL get the filibuster removed, and make Washington DC a state

Issues like this is what distracts us from the main goal, and that is winning the WH and Congress

There is no doubt in my mind that if we are successful in winning, we will get that done

Majority rule, just like the House

[Thekaspervote]

29. This!! If we don't, every bill we pass into law will be threatened with repeal. No, our dem

Leaders are not going to go along with that! If they do...what’s the point?

[still_one]

31. Also, why should we show our hands on things like this until and unless we win?

[LuvJoesPartner]

25. Retire please, term limits are a great idea,

eliminates dictatorships and antiquated ideas.

[maxsolomon]

28. Term limits are not a great idea.

They're a Republican Bullshit idea.

Welcome to DU.

[LuvJoesPartner]

39. Thank you for the greeting!

We can disagree, but Moscow Mitch for example, has been a thorn in our side for far too long and has damaged this country.

[Codeine]

79. Term limits are anathema to democracy.

The people should be able to elect their leaders are many times as they desire. Anything else is some right wing bullshit.

[Hav]

27. Strange to see more and more threads aimed against Dems lately

Also, why are people so naive and short-sighted to believe that removing the filibuster or packing the SC will only benefit the Dems?

[Thekaspervote]

30. I don't think pointing out opposition is bashing. Yes it may help pukes, but a 6-3 conservative

Court??? We might just as well be living in a fascist one party system...no!

[LuvJoesPartner]

33. Agree!!

[Hav]

48. Maybe increasing the number helps getting closer to 50/50 in the longterm

But would you have liked it if Trump had expanded the SC to 15 judges? And if the Dems increase it to 15, what stops the Rs from setting the limit to 50? Maybe it's the institution itself that needs to be reconsidered and not (only) the number of its members.

[Statistical]

60. Have you ever noticed that only Democrats are worried about the what ifs.

Mitch took a risk. He saw a chance to block Obama's nominee. He had the legal power although maybe not the ethical right to do so and he did it. He didn't worry about what the Democrats might be able to do someday down the road. He saw power. He took power. He did it again now. The net score is +2 Republican Justices.

If people give you power ... use that power. The Republicans sure as fuck will.

Democrats get power = prevailing wisdom is we can't do anything because down the road Republicans might do something
Republicans get power = ram though a right wing agenda no questions asked

then ...

Democrats get power = prevailing wisdom is we can't do anything because down the road Republicans might do something
Republicans get power = ram though a right wing agenda no questions asked

If PR was a right wing territory it would be a state already.
If the Supreme Court had a 6-3 liberal lean it would have been expanded already.
Republican take power when the people give it to them.

[standingtall]

64. Trump would've expanded the court if he could have

The only reason republicans didn't repeal the legislative filibuster when they had the congress was because they feared Democrats would expand the supreme court once they controlled the government again. Limiting the number of supreme court justices permanently would require a constitutional amendment not going to happen and Democrats have the demographics of the U.S. territories on their side. Make them States and Democrats control the Senate for a long time to come and by extension control the Supreme court.

[lame54]

32. All the old people who won't see much of the future...

Are in charge of it

[Politicalgolfer]

35. How can I say this nicely...

I am 75 and this is typical shit, par for the course with our Democratic party...never changes. The Republicans rule even when they are not in power! The rich, corporate power & influential foreign powers call the shots for these actors who flit across our national stage.

[Sneederbunk]

36. Too much blue in that old dog.

[Doremus]

42. There are too many blue dogs to make either of these pie-in-the-sky Hail Marys possible.

I wish people would realize there isn't a chance in hell Dems will push them through.

We must fight now or plan on spending the rest of our lives in their sick society.

[Statistical]

53. There is no fight now.

The majority leader sets the agenda of the Senate. The Senate has every right to confirm a nominee. Mitch's lies which we all knew were lies when he said it back in 2016 doesn't legally change that. Republicans have indicated Mitch has the votes he needs. There will be a confirmation "hearing" (sham trial) and a vote. It will go by party lines. The nominee will be confirmed.

[Doremus]

83. There better be a fight.

If we don't fight we've lost the battle and the war.

If we let them appoint their justice, there won't be a President Biden to stack the court and end the filibuster. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if those radical actions DO take place in such a scenario. By the current occupant.

[progressoid]

37. You're not doing us any favors Dianne

[octoberlib]

38. Expanding the SC is polling badly, that's why. First goal is to win.

[Le Roi de Pot]

46. Republicans are polling badly .. Has that stopped them from anything?

Fuck the bloody polls !!

[octoberlib]

63. Gotta win first. I'm just saying don't run on it but after Dems are elected they can start fixing

shit.

[OneBro]

47. Didn't know that. Danke'!

[Cosmocat]

55. Agree and

No reason to bring this up before November 3.

I tend to agree that increasing the number of SC justices will be tough to sell.

I think the better avenue is statehood for DC and PR, and possible expansion of the lower courts.

Honestly, the SC was an ongoing loss with this country indulging right wing fuckwittery, buying the both sider bullshit and people not showing up to vote. You pay a price for not taking democracy seriously. People gave it up, can't go back and fix that. CAN take the shit seriously and understand the GOP is a full on white supremist freak conspiracy party and not play their games and show TFU to vote.

[Statistical]

56. She didn't just shoot down expanding the court.

She shot down the whole idea of removing the filibuster and felt the need to make "inaccurate" statements about it being a good thing and not being used very often.

[Yavin4]

58. Trump has never been above 50% in ANY poll ever since he got the Repub nomination.

Not as a candidiate in 2016. Not as a president for the past 4 years. And, not as an incumbent presidential candidate in 2020.

Not once. Not ever.

Has that stopped him from doing what he wants to do?

[Bradshaw3]

67. Which poll would that be?

I searched for awhile and couldn't find a poll done after her death concerning expanding the court. You wrote that it "is poling badly." so please link to those polls so we'll know that what you wrote is true.

[octoberlib]

72. Can't link to them because I got the information from a friend from Delaware who's working on

Biden's NC campaign. I asked her if he would support it and she said no because it's polling badly on their internal polls. Don't have anymore details. Believe me or not. Biden's not going to say anything to rile up the crossover voters he's got to have to win the purple electoral college states he needs before the election. We've gotta win first.


Don't know anything about Feinstein's motivation. She only has to worry about California and it's a blue state.

[Bradshaw3]

77. I would bet some post RGB-death polls on the subject will be coming out pretty soon

I would also bet they have a different outcome. We will see.

[standingtall]

69. The polling doesn't tell the whole story

Could be that expanding the Supreme court isn't going to turn off moderates and centrist much who plan on voting for Biden, but broadcasting we are going to let the republican supreme court stand might kill the enthusiasm of liberals and progressives especially those that care about Roe v Wade.

[Doremus]

41. Told you. nt

[aidbo]

44. Democratic senator from the bluest state in the union folks.

[Baclava]

52. Its awfully dry out there, powder keeps for a long, long time

[Bettie]

71. Right?

Some day there might be a crisis or corruption or something that requires action and then...oh, wait. Never mind.

[aidbo]

75. Yeah, if you keep your powder dry for long enough, you probably won't even need to use it!

[Sympthsical]

54. I voted and advocated for De Leon

I took a lot of crap for that, too. We just had to have Feinstein for some reason. People were smearing anyone who breathed as anti-Democratic if they wanted someone else.

How’s that working out?

[Statistical]

57. She has done a lot of good things for the party over the years but she is out of touch with ..

what the party wants and what the party needs.

[Sympthsical]

61. I'm not saying she's terrible

But in a state as blue and liberal as ours, we can be doing better.

[WyattKansas]

59. Well Hell, why don't the Democrats just turn over all the evidence when they get in power...

That PROVES tRUMP cheated and stole the 2016 Election, along with the evidence proving how many Republican Senators and Members of Congress went along with it and were in on the theft?
Including Republican Senate races that accepted Russian cheating to win in the 2016 Election that helped confirm tRUMP's ill gotten gains.

Then force that to be constantly in the news 24/7 by all means necessary, especially links to tied to Fux Newz, and get We The People outraged enough to demand immediate reconciliation for the thefts, including all Judges that were placed with their cheating and thefts. No, do not allow Republicans to taint everything with their machine gun lawsuits to Conservative Activist Judges to shut them down on anything. Develop the nerve and say Hell NO to every weasel attempt to block what they have been due for a very long time and call out every asshole being dismissive of their Republican deeds.

Rolling over on this will only get the same wash and repeat bullshit that has gone on for decades and everyone already knows that. The Republican Party are the guilty ones who chose to defraud and endanger the United States of America, so don't condone any of it just to make nice.

[Paladin]

65. Yeah, well. God forbid that Democrats do anything decisive against trump. (nt)

[demosincebirth]

66. Finallly, I hear her!!

[Sogo]

68. So what?

A comment made without deliberation should not be considered as cast in stone....

Good heavens, look at the flip flops among the Rs on this SC vote!

[chowder66]

73. +1

[Azathoth]

76. Ah, the patented Democratic strategy: preemptively surrender, then commence battle

I think the filibuster serves a purpose. It is not often used, it's often less used now than when I first came,

That's because the GOP has the majority, Diane. It was a different story when Obama was in office.

[sarcasmo]

80. Two Strikes

[Le Roi de Pot]

82. against whom?

[denbot]

81. Every time I criticized my senior Senator, I got crap here.

She needs to be replaced by a big “D” Democrat.

[treestar]

86. The Republicans are now using it routinely

It does the Democrats no good.

[rufus dog]

87. Well ain't that rich

Not going to miss her one bit.