What the F*ck Are These People Talking About? - Esquire

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a37771633/senate-reconciliation-filibuster-democrats-manchin-sinema/


It remains completely insane—abjectly nuts—that you cannot just pass a bill in the Senate with a majority of votes. The Senate is by design a starkly undemocratic body where a person who gets a couple hundred thousand citizens' votes has equal power with someone who gets millions. The chamber is currently split 50-50 between the two major-party caucuses, but the 50 Democrats and Independents represent 41.5 million more people than the 50 Republicans do. So warped is our perception of things, however, that the 50+1 votes Democrats used to pass a pandemic relief package earlier this year—they relied on the tie-breaking vote of Vice President Kamala Harris—seemed to strain democratic legitimacy. In reality, it was a means of rescuing some legitimacy, not to mention functionality, for a legislative body on the brink. A legislature that cannot respond to a crisis and deliver in a way that reflects the people's will is in big trouble.

The way that Democrats even got that done is through the process known as budget reconciliation, wherein the Senate can pass a bill with a simple majority (50+1) so long as it travels through a Rube Goldberg machine of arcane rules—the Byrd Rule being the most prominent—and generally deals with tax, spending, and debt limit issues. Whether something fits the bill for reconciliation is often in dispute. Democrats tried to include immigration reform in the bill currently under consideration and were shot down by the Parliamentarian, an unelected office whose holder is tasked with adjudicating these things. (Immigration reform is clearly a stretch for reconciliation, but also the Parliamentarian's decisions are non-binding.) Now Democrats will wait anxiously to see what else this random person will tell them they can't include in the bill, all because Democrats refuse to get rid of the filibuster, a mechanism of obstruction that, through a solid decade of abuse, has led to pretty much everything requiring 60 votes to pass. This is less of a supermajority than the filibuster used to require, and the Senate has also repeatedly carved out exceptions to the filibuster in recent years, particularly on judicial confirmations. But conservative Democrats, led by Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, are clinging to this arbitrary obstacle to their own party's agenda, one that they could remove at any time.

What you may have picked up on by now is that all of this shit is completely made up and incredibly dumb. The Senate was already a body weighted grossly in favor of inaction, and thus the status quo, which tends to benefit the most powerful people in our society and relegate the concerns of the marginalized to well beyond the margins. In its current form, where the filibuster blocks most everything besides judges and Pentagon spending, it is complete farce. The Founders did not create the filibuster, or the Parliamentarian, or budget reconciliation, not that it would matter all that much if they did. We’re seeing this nonsense play out in practice with the debt ceiling. It takes 50+1 votes to raise it—and pay for bills already accrued—but 60 votes to end debate and advance to a vote. Republicans are blocking the motion to advance.

And thus we come to a point where the United States of America faces a parade of generational crises, but the most powerful legislators in the land are creating their own institutional crises to occupy their time instead. Without the filibuster, Republican senators would actually be more incentivized to cooperate: if the bill were likely to pass in some form without them, they'd be more inclined to participate in crafting a proposal they might like better. Indeed, some did collab on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Framework—a separate bill from the reconciliation proposal, running on a parallel track—but that alone is woefully inadequate to meet the problems of the moment. There's good reason to believe Republican leader Mitch McConnell and his caucus backed it in the belief they could use it to kill off the rest of the Biden administration's domestic agenda, and they might be correct in that assessment.

*snip*

[bluewater]

1. K&R

The Senate was already a body weighted grossly in favor of inaction, and thus the status quo, which tends to benefit the most powerful people in our society and relegate the concerns of the marginalized to well beyond the margins. In its current form, where the filibuster blocks most everything besides judges and Pentagon spending, it is complete farce. The Founders did not create the filibuster, or the Parliamentarian, or budget reconciliation, not that it would matter all that much if they did.

[Girard442]

2. If the plan of Manchin and Sinema was to drive this country right over a cliff...

...so the Reichwing could take control of the rubble, they wouldn't be behaving much differently than they are now.

[KPN]

9. THIS

[Susan Calvin]

25. Yep. nt

[Tommymac]

32. So true.

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. "over a cliff". So why doesn't a a tiny part of their pea brains ever consider that?

I appreciate the sarcasm to make a point, but I have a hard time actually believing that Sinema and even Manchin have that sinister a plan up their sleeves.

So are they fooling themselves? Are they delusional? They are able to just dismiss the threat of looming Fascism. For what? Don't their own constituents want Biden's bills?

[Hekate]

3. KnR

[Aussie105]

4. Just the Anarchist Dogma at work here . . .

To show your dislike of the system you live and work in, you destroy it.

From the rubble will miraculously grow something to your liking. Overnight. With your influence and power being supreme.

Never mind that the current system, warts and all, took a couple of centuries to develop.

It's a shame - putting it politely - that elected officials who are meant to serve the public, stoop to this.

[SergeStorms]

5. A - Fucking - Men.

It's ridiculous. When a minority of Senators, when a minority of citizens, can overrule the majority it is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

I'm sick of this shit. Republicans get to change and break rules to get anything they want, but Democrats have to play by the rules all the time?

If Democrats don't produce for the people of the United States this time, they won't get another chance for a long, long time.

It's time to smack Manchin, Sinema, and anyone else standing in the way upside the head and get them in line. To reiterate, I'm sick of this shit.

[Dave says]

10. " Republicans get to change...rules to get anything they want"

Keep heading on this course and I betcha’ McConnell, newly installed, eliminates the filibuster. Then o my god watch how they tear the heart out of this country.

[kelly1mm]

17. Well the majority of Democrats have stated

The filibuster should be eliminated so shouldn’t it be eliminated when the republicans are in control?

[Dave says]

20. No

As said elsewhere, the 50 Democrats and Independents represent 41 million more Americans than the 50 Republicans. Having said that, we should eliminate the filibuster now, pass what we need to pass, and get it done.

[SergeStorms]

21. They have in the past.

Supreme Court choices out the wazoo, even after saying you can't nominate SC Judges in an election year.

I know that's not subject to the filibuster, but do you think there's any rule, or law they won't break if it suits their nefarious purposes?

[KPN]

7. K& f'ing R!

[Auggie]

8. Republican agenda: disrupt, distort, distract, deceive, delay ... and then blame Democrats.

[Dave says]

11. Yup

It works for their paymasters, the (truly) ruling oligarchs.

[Jon King]

13. Yup, and voters fall for it again and again, thats why Dem plans always stall.

If working class voters would just elect Dems for 30 years, they could get stuff done. But everytime Clinton gets it going, they elect a Bush. Every time Obama gets it going, here is a Trump. Biden trying to help them and their families....oh no, shiny object over here, lets start looking for another Repug in 2024.

[Auggie]

23. Yeah, except looks like now elections will just be stolen.

[Caliman73]

16. It works with their philosophy.

For Democrats, the philosophy is to "govern by consent of the governed" and use the power of government to address the needs of the most people as well as possible. It isn't always perfect and runs into problems but they seem to want the best for the greatest amount of people.

For Republicans, the philosophy is to protect the "natural order" which is a hierarchy, lead by wealthy White, Protestant Christian, Men with the rest of the population servicing that hierarchy with some kind of second class citizenship.

Democrats believe in government. Republicans do not want to govern, they want to rule because they feel it is their right. If government breaks then it just feeds into their ideas and gives them more room to come in with authoritarian power.

[Celerity]

12. K & R

The current process on the larger reconciliation bill, meanwhile, has the convenience of, for someone like Senator Sinema, protecting the interests of their large donors in maintaining the status quo.

It is less convenient for the rest of us, who can see the clock ticking on this planet's time as a hospitable environment for human civilization as we know it.

And on the legitimacy of our elections as state-level Republicans go on the attack against voters and outcomes they find inconvenient.

And for families living on the brink, where parents soon won't be able to afford to take time off work when they get sick or to take care of their newborn babies.

This country has not seen robust, broad-based investment in its own people in decades. There's only been money for war and rich-person tax cuts.

[Nasruddin]

14. John Dingell's advice:

"Abolish the Senate."
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/john-dingell-how-restore-faith-government/577222/

(I further add: toss the Supreme Court with it. Adopt a proportional representation system, like Germany, for the House.)

[zaj]

15. Sorry but... There is sound reason for the filibuster

I am open to the argument that it needs to go away, but there is a sound reason why both sides have kept it in place.

It's there to help provide stability. That's an important goal of governance.

Change can happen too quickly.

Policy swings back and forth will undermine the public trust in government.

It's not a popular thing to acknowledge, but it's a reality we must acknowledge.

[SergeStorms]

22. The same can be done...

by electing SANE SENATORS who will listen to reason, and do what's best for the vast majority of Americans.

Of course this isn't possible with today's hyper-partisan republican party.

Do away with the filibuster now. Explain to Americans why the filibuster, in the hands of republicans, is a weapon used to keep the poor and middle classes from ever achieving anything greater than total stagnation. Show them the statistics to prove it.

When Americans elect republicans who'll work for all of them, reinstate the filibuster if needed. Threaten to deep-six it again if republicans fuck up.

It could work. 70% of Americans aren't stupid. What we can't do is allow that 30% of stupid Americans to hold our country hostage.

[lonely bird]

26. It was innovated by John Calhoun

To maintain the status quo of slavery. It did not exist until the 1830’s. Madison, the author of the Constitution, was against it. The abolitionist movement was starting to gain traction and Calhoun, racist and eventual Confederate that he was, laid the foundation of the filibuster.

Stability, alleged, is not the same as gridlock. Unfortunately, we now have a Republican Party that is psychotic and a threat to the country. Yes, I would bet that they would eliminate the filibuster if they gained a majority in the Senate. And they would restore it if they lost that majority. They would also attempt to remove every progressive advancement including but not limited to Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, minimum wage etc. One key to preventing a radicalized Senate is to hold the presidency and veto everything that comes out of the Senate that is a threat to progressive programs. Another is to try and insure that Republicans never hold a veto proof majority in the Senate. Get out the vote and fight dirtier than Republicans.

[MoonlitKnight]

36. The Senate already has that by Constitutional design.

The filibuster tilts the scale too far towards inaction.

The six year terms and just two per state regardless of population already makes the Senate conservative and a robust check on acting too quickly.

The filibuster has been abused and is only harmful. The Senate can now only produce extreme judges to life appointments and spending bills that favor large corporate interests, such as defense and big oil.

[zaj]

45. How does the Senate keep from passing-and-undoing laws?

[moose65]

44. Hmmm

As far as I know, the filibuster can only be used in two ways - to prevent the Senate from beginning debate on a bill, and to prevent the Senate from ending debate on a bill. Right? Once the Senate invokes cloture on a bill, the actual vote on the bill itself only needs 51 votes to pass, right?

The motion to proceed (to begin debate) should not be subject to a filibuster. The party in power should get to set the agenda and decide which bills to debate. To prevent a cloture vote, the minority party should have to stay on the floor and keep debate open, by reading the phone book or whatever, until they pass out on the Senate floor. The purpose of the filibuster is to make sure the minority party is heard during debate. Today’s Republicans don’t want to debate - they just want to block everything.

[CanonRay]

18. We get rid of the filibuster

or democracy flames out and we self destruct. That's about the size of it.

[hunter]

19. The Senate is our House of Lords.

The United Kingdom neutered its House of Lords a long time ago.

[IronLionZion]

30. Ours is less hereditary

but still needs to be neutered and reformed for modern times

[maxrandb]

24. Here's what I don't understand

Do the rich and powerful think a Civil War is good for their bottom line?

What, do they think they come out unscathed from the chaos that will ensue?

Do the corporations that fund the Retrumplican Party think that their bottom line is better under a Russian style authoritarian regime, or in a dystopian hellscape?

That is where we are heading.

Seems to me that supporting our Jeffersonian Democracy is a much better long term investment.

At the very least, they should be concerned that enough of the consumers that buy their products and services are going to hold them accountable for this shit.

That is the only thing that I think we have the power to do. If they don't respect our votes, they don't deserve our money, or our labor.

Seems corporate America has a choice. They can either support American Democracy, or they can contribute to the Retrumplican Party. Their is no nuance there. You can't say; "well, I'd love for democracy to prevail, but I really like 29% marginal tax rates over 35%.

Corporate America can either pay a few more percentage points in taxes and prosper under a Clinton or Obama type economy and government, or they can have the type of economy and government of Afghanistan.

[Lokee11]

29. Exactly!!!

I wonder the same thing.

✊!

[Tommymac]

34. They are counting on their secure enclaves and private armies to protect them

What do you think gated communities and BlackWater are really all about???????

They are wrong, the billions will overwhelm them in the long run.

But billions will die too, and not sure Our Planet will survive the climatological, biological and nuclear chaos that would ensue.

[Elessar Zappa]

39. But if there's

widespread chaos, they’ll lose their fortune like everyone else. They’re not thinking ahead.

[Wild blueberry]

27. Fuck the filibuster

And tell the Parlimentarian to take a hike.

America is burning (flooding, starving, dying) and now is the time for action. Dems only have a short time to ACT.
We may do well in the mid-terms, but we must act now.

[LiberalArkie]

28. The senate was designed to represent the states, hence all the states have equal representation.

The house was designed to represent the people. Hence states with a greater number of people have a larger number of representatives.

[hunter]

33. The states didn't have a formal landed gentry or peerage...

... to serve as a House of Lords so they invented the Senate, many of them fully expecting a landed gentry to develop naturally even as they rejected titles of nobility.

The U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids the Federal Government and States from issuing or respecting any titles of nobility.

[moose65]

43. And we've even ceded THAT to them....

Through egregious gerrymandering. The House should be Democratic forever, if it’s really based on population. But it’s not, really, because we insist on keeping the size of the House at 435. Makes absolutely no sense at all. States like New York, California, and Illinois lost House seats, even though their populations increased between 2010 and 2020. At the very least, states should not lose House seats unless they actually lost population.

Many of the blue states are actually under-represented. California has about 68 times the population of Wyoming, but only has 53 (soon to be 52) times the representatives in the House. And everyone acts like this is gospel, like the filibuster.

[llashram]

31. yep

on all points.

[Tommymac]

35. "Give me the filabuster or Give me political death."

That is the caption that should be below this picture.

https://mediaproxy.salon.com/width/1200/height/675/

[The Wizard]

42. Are republicans

sending bribes to their offshore money laundry accounts?

[calimary]

37. Hmmm... look at that photo up top. I wonder if Manchin has a sense of this...

Cuz if so, he’s shrewder than I thought (if that’s a word!).

He’s shown looking down - from above. Overhead. Taller than the others. Looking down from a higher step than the guy who’s reading the announcement or the key notes or whatever’s on the top of the binder he’s holding. (Aka: the short guy - “look! I’m taller! I’m the one you notice and the one your eye subconsciously identifies as The One Who Presides. I’m the authority here! See ME? They all have to look upwards to see me!”

I’m sorry. Maybe I’m just reading into this. Frankly, it’s hard to think of an idiot like Manchin being so devious or calculating. But I’ve certainly been wrong before.

[Celerity]

40. Manchin is 1.91m tall (almost 6 feet 3 and half inches) so is taller than many pols

[Ferrets are Cool]

41. This x 1000