Is there an option, no matter how outlandish, to avoid Sinema's opposition to avoid filibuster?

[Stinky The Clown]

Executive order, maybe?

I don't know. Just spitballing here. If we don't get voter rights bill we may well lose our democracy. It really does seem to me me that dire.

[PoliticAverse]

1. The problem is she may not be the only democrat opposed to a filibuster carve out

for voting rights. Otherwise just pay her price.

[Amishman]

10. My thought as well, I doubt she is the only one

Tester immediately comes to mind

[tritsofme]

15. Tester is among those leading the charge to convince Manchin.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/585996-democrats-make-frantic-last-ditch-effort-to-change-senate-rules?amp

[Amishman]

16. Well, I'll be... Definitely missed that somehow

[Fiendish Thingy]

19. If Manchin agrees, then Sinema will fold. She is a coward not able to stand alone. Nt

[bucolic_frolic]

2. No matter how outlandish?

Convince a Republican to support the US Constitution in name, letter, and spirit.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

3. Use the Republican Playbook

Since the states are not allowing democrats participation in the elections process like counting votes, etc. Do not sit incoming House or Senate Republicans until the Democrats can count all "legitimate votes". In addition, during the takeover of the American government, President Biden can enact Marshall Law.

What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

[iemanja]

4. no martial law

I thought we were supposed to be the party of democracy? If it's only about power, we might as well be the GOP.

[leftstreet]

6. A "party of democracy" that doesn't protect voting rights

okay

[onecaliberal]

7. 👆🏻👆🏻👆🏻

[SCantiGOP]

11. how about a 'party of democracy'

that protects the Constitution.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

26. Thank you leftstreet

[iemanja]

29. What makes you think I don't want voting rights protected?

Last edited Thu Dec 16, 2021, 12:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Or that the Democratic Party doesn't? Are you advocating authoritarianism?

[leftstreet]

31. Sigh. You can exercise power without using authoritarianism

Example: right now Biden has the power to use his exec pen and cancel the $10k of student debt he campaigned on. There's nothing authoritarian about using his executive powers.

Mitch McConnell has exercised power through laws, rules, manipulation, and shrewd political calculation. No "martial law" involved

[iemanja]

33. I was referring to the point about Biden's declaring martial law

That is authoritarianism, and that is what you have defended. You attack the Democrats for an inability to break the filibuster to get Voting Rights passed, as though they didn't care about it, but you defend martial law, only to invoke the student debt issue, as though it were remotely related to the discussion.
Student debt has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

47. By the way, Michael Flynn's soldiers were

trained by the US and are ready to be used against us. Do you not get it now? They are declaring war on us and we need to do what is in our power to fight back, we are in control of Presidency and both houses - that gives us and enormous amount of power.

[iemanja]

50. I understand the threat very well

Republicans and their supporters are duplicitous characters and there is no low that they won't sink to.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

51. OK

[radius777]

58. Exactly. Biden won mainly due to PoC and suburban moderates.

PoC voters stood on lines and voted in places like Milwaukee, Philly, Detroit, Atlanta that helped flip those states blue.

Suburban voters during the Trump era moved over to Dems/Biden.

Both voting blocs viewed the 2020 election as an existential crisis for democracy and want action on voting rights.

[Yoyoyo77]

22. Martial law is a step too far, at this point, but might be necessary at a later point.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

24. Thank you Yoyoyo77

[MarineCombatEngineer]

55. You should read this and learn the very, very narrow conditions for Martial Law to be declared.

onenote (36,391 posts)

21. It doesn't seem to matter how often martial (not Marshall) law is explained here

There are always DUers who think it can be invoked at the drop of a hat. It can't.

The Supreme Court long ago explained what martial law is and the limits of its implementation under the Constitution:

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)

"If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

[SCantiGOP]

12. Mary in SC:

You are advocating a coup, the destruction of our Constitution, and the overthrow of our Democratic Republic. Doesn't make it one damn bit different if it’s us or them doing it.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

23. I disagree

If they refuse to conduct elections democratically, this is an act of war.

[iemanja]

32. If the Democrats ever pull that shit

I'm out. If you have your way, the US will have officially descended into hell and not be worth saving. I can't express how morally disgusting I find your proposal.

The authoritarian rot besetting this nation is dangerous. This kind of ethos is precisely why we got Trump and why this country is heading toward destruction.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

34. Either they win or we win, which would you like?

[iemanja]

35. I want nothing to do with your fascism

What you propose is turning the Democratic Party into the worst version of the Republican party. Your suggestion disgusts me as much as anything I have ever read in my life.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

41. Okay, I will say it again,

If the republicans want to prevent democrats from participating in elections and try to steal the elections again, this is an act of war and it is our duty to protect democracy. Should we not protect democracy?

[Mary in S. Carolina]

62. OK????

[radius777]

70. I don't think you get it. She posed a hypothetical

whereby Republicans attained power via non-democratic means. Biden/Dems should use every available legal mechanism (including martial law if necessary) to stop such a coup, until democratic order can be restored. The purpose of such a measure would not be to keep Biden/Dems in power, but simply to ensure that there is a democratic transfer of power.

Fascism in Europe rose not because it was strong, but because democracy was weak, and because pro-democracy people blindly followed norms while fascists did not.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

14. It's Martial Law, not Marshall Law,

this is a common mistake and President Biden can't just willy nilly impose Martial Law.

[iemanja]

36. Something smells off to me.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

39. Like what?

[iemanja]

42. martial law.

Misspelled or not.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

44. Ah, ok, I got it now.

At 74, my brain isn't as quick as it used to be.

[tritsofme]

17. Aside from being a terrible, illegal, and scarily authoritarian idea.

It also wouldn’t work.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

25. There is nothing scarier than living

under authoritarian white male supremacy

[tritsofme]

27. I'd just as soon not live under the authoritarian dystopia you've dreamed up either.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

28. Who said I want to live under

authoritarian dystopia? This is a nightmare no matter how you look at it.

[iemanja]

37. Then why are you advocating for just that?

[Mary in S. Carolina]

38. Ok, I will say it again

If the republicans do not allow democrats to actively participate in the elections and try to steal the elections again, it is an act of war and it is our duty to protect democracy. Why is this so hard to understand?

[iemanja]

40. You advocated destroying democracy

not protecting it. You said Biden should declare martial law. That is the end of democracy. And your little quip about white male authoritarianism ignores the fact that is exactly what would happen under your scenario. It's not like white supremacy and misogyny would disappear with martial law.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

45. Ok, let's do it your way and not

fight back and give America over to the likes of Jim Jordan. Sorry I am going to fight for democracy.

[iemanja]

49. fight back by ending democracy

Was your suggestion. Claiming that declaring martial law defends democracy is part of the Big Lie.

That's giving you the benefit of the doubt. The fact is, I think you are stirring up shit to make DU look bad.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

53. Why would I want DU to look bad?

What is your suggestion? You asked for my suggestion, and I gave it to you? Also, I am not the only one on this thread that feels this way.

[iemanja]

54. Restore voting rights legislatively

use everything against Sinema until she buckles. Challenge GOP laws in the courts. Fight back---DEMOCRATICLY.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

57. The whole purpose of this thread

is based on if Sinema and/or Manchin refuse to buckle, then what is your suggestion?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

59. It certainly isn't declaring Martial Law, which, BTW, cannot be declared on a whim.

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)

"If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

[Mary in S. Carolina]

60. I understand that

[MarineCombatEngineer]

63. ...

[Mary in S. Carolina]

68. What is your suggestion?

I gave mine, but few have given me their suggestions.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

72. My suggestion?

Keep on doing what we're doing, democratically, it seems to be starting to work what with the revelations of just how corrupt the Mango Menace and his criminal cabal were/are here in just the last few days.

What you don't do is declare Martial Law, like the Mango Menace was being pushed to do, which would have been illegal and the Military wouldn't have obeyed such an illegal order, also, the courts would step in real fast and nullified any such order.

That's my suggestion, for better or worse.

[iemanja]

66. I gave you mine

Force it. Use the courts. What isn't on my list of possibilities is your dream of a fascist America.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

67. Yes I dream all day and all night about

a fascist America....ah....the joy. Give me a break.

[onenote]

21. It doesn't seem to matter how often martial (not Marshall) law is explained here

There are always DUers who think it can be invoked at the drop of a hat. It can't.

The Supreme Court long ago explained what martial law is and the limits of its implementation under the Constitution:

Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)

"If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

[SKKY]

43. Isn't what you're proposing basically what we have all been hyperventilating...

...over because Republicans are doing that very thing? Are you for real?

[Mary in S. Carolina]

48. Yes

Except they did it to overthrow a duly elected president which is illegal. If they refuse to allow democrats to participate in elections and try to steal the elections again, this , to me, is an act of war and it is our duty to protect democracy. What do you suggest we do??

[Celerity]

52. that requires us to hold the Senate and the House in 2022 and 2024

Do not sit incoming House or Senate Republicans until the Democrats can count all "legitimate votes".

also

In addition, during the takeover of the American government, President Biden can enact Marshall Law.

I highly doubt Biden will declare martial law unless the Rethugs start a shooting war (and a declaration of martial law just might kick one off if one has not started)

[Mary in S. Carolina]

64. What is your suggestion Celerity?

I was asked for my suggestion and I gave an answer, what is your suggestion?

[Celerity]

69. Get Sinema and Manchin to cave and accept the carve outs, if not, we are basically well fucked,

especially IF Manchin also scuppers the BBB in toto. 2022 and thus 2024 are likely going to be a shitshow bloodbath for us IF Manchin goes full blockage on all of it, aided by Sinema in part.

There really are no work-arounds that are viable, other than to sue and sue and sue and HOPE the SCOTUS doesn't fuck the nation.

IF Manchin goes full stop obstructionist, democracy in the US will be on possible life-support, as we will already be fighting the historical horrid 1st midterms history of Dem POTUS's for us (go look at 1994 and 2010, it is brutal AF), plus the post 2020 Census reapportionment, the voter suppression bills, and then the hyper partisan RW gerrymandering.

[radius777]

61. +1. Republicans fight dirty

and we can't continue to play by standard rules when they've thrown out the rulebook.

If they throw out democracy to attain power then we'll have no choice but to fight fire with fire.

Authoritarians always depend upon other people following norms while they don't - that is their biggest advantage.

[Mary in S. Carolina]

65. Thank you radius777

We are in power, let's not forget it.

[Delphinus]

5. Surely

someone has something on these folks that they can use as leverage - seriously! I am so tired of these betrayals.

[onecaliberal]

9. They're opposition is repping someone.

[PlanetBev]

8. So what's the good news here?

That Medgar Evers, Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman, Viola Luizzo and Martin Luther King’s lives were sacrificed so a former Green Party ditz with a silly wardrobe can block millions of good people from voting?

[MarineCombatEngineer]

13. The Executive Order applies only to the Executive branch of the Govt.

not the Legislative or Judicial branch, so, no Executive Order would be valid for the Congress.

I share your frustration with Sinema's stonewalling.

[Fiendish Thingy]

18. Hound her in public and make her life miserable

More bathroom conferences with constituents.

No executive order could affect Sinema, unless you’re suggesting Biden declare her a terrorist under the Patriot Act and send her to Gitmo.

It’s bleak.

[MichMan]

20. Have the FBI plant evidence and blackmail her?

That would certainly fit the definition of outlandish.

[Justice matters.]

30. Well, if she's for the Voting Act, let the POTUS explain to her...

that being "for" the bill means she wants it to pass and become Law of the land, and since all Republican Senators obstruct his agenda, none of them will vote for it, and that's why Dem Senators must do away with the filibuster in order to pass it with 51 votes TO SAVE DEMOCRACY.

[iemanja]

56. They've got to strong arm Sinema

Somehow get her to back down. Threaten to primary her with lots of resources. Dig into her past. Run ads against her. Whatever it takes to get her to break the filibuster for voting rights. If there is one bill to get through, it's that.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

71. No. She's a traitor, playing a long game in service of a conservative religious organization. nt