The Filibuster

[Groundhawg]

I know we're are all frustrated we can't get this changed. But I tell you I am terrified what would happen when the rethugs are back in power and start doing things with a simple 1 vote majority.

Remember the old saying: Pure democracy is 3 animals, 2 wolves, one sheep. The two wolves vote to eat the sheep, boom its so.

The R's are going to make us regret this decision to the ultimate degree.

[Enter stage left]

1. Uhh..well

while I totally respect your choice to have your opinion...have a nice stay.

[Groundhawg]

3. What does that mean?

[ForgedCrank]

30. I'm not positive,

but it seems like a veiled warning of some sort. I say this because I've gotten the same thing when I post an unpopular position on something. There are some who believe in following the leader no matter what.
I live to question everything, and I follow my heart rather than what other people tell me to. I'm a rock solid Democrat voter and always have been, but I do have a few libertarian tenancies or leanings. That gets me in trouble a lot.

[dchill]

2. Hi. Kyrsten? Joe?

[Mr.Bill]

4. As soon as the republicans have the White House

and both houses of Congress, they will do away with the filibuster on day one.

[kelly1mm]

7. The beginning of the conflict between Sen. McConnell and Pres. Trump was his refusal to do away

with the filibuster when the R's had the Presidency, the Senate and the House when the ACA repeal was tried. If McConnell did not get rid of it then why would he now? What changed in less than 4 years?

[Mr.Bill]

10. Lots of things changed.

Manchin and Sinema blocking most of Biden's agenda. An attempt at violently overthrowing the government. Four years of Trump taking a wrecking ball to every government agency. A pandemic. A recession. It's a completely different world now. If McConnel or his successor keeps the filibuster, he won't get anything done.

[Groundhawg]

11. There has ALWAYS been blocking. Nothing new.

[kelly1mm]

13. Great. So I look forward to all 48 Democratic caucusing Senators supporting Sen. McConnell in his

repeal of the filibuster (meaning those that do as of now, Manchin and Sinema excluded) on day 1 of his becoming majority leader as to get rid of this 'jim crow' relic. Do you think that those Democratic caucusing Senators will actually do so? I SERIOUSLY doubt it and that is why I think this is all political posturing.

[brush]

18. The repulican party now has veered so far right towards authoritarianism...

that I doubt McTurtle will be majority leader if they take over all three branches of government. Hell, we're so close to having enough state legislatures being republican-run, Constitutional amendments could come that will change the entire structure of the nation and government...all favoring republican, one-party rule of course.

We're on a slippery slope to fascism and Manchin and Sinema are greasing the skis. Her with her gigantic ego thinking she'll run for president soon from the center (neither extreme left of right), and Manchin keeping his carbon fuel, dirty coal, gravy train running on schedule. Both selfishly kneecapping the president and our chances to keep Congressional majorities in '22.

[krawhitham]

8. They had EXACTLY THAT 4 years ago and did not kill the filibuster

Just saying

[Mr.Bill]

12. They got rid of it for SCOTUS appointments.

That probably did more damage to the country than just about anything else I can think of. Long term damage.

[kelly1mm]

14. After Majority Leader Reid got rid of the filibuster for judicial appointments other than USSC. NT

[Mr.Bill]

15. Yes, because they were blocking all of Obama's

judicial appointments. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated, she got 96 votes in the Senate. Garland couldn't get an interview. Times have changed.

[kelly1mm]

16. So long as you have the same position when Sen. McConnell is in charge I will consider your position

principled. Somehow I doubt there will be overwhelming support for eliminating the filibuster when/if the R's regain the majority.

[brush]

19. You assume McTurtle will be voted in as republicn majority leader if they take over.

I doubt it as the orange turd hates McConnell now. If the republicans take over all branches of government, it's all over for us as far as democracy/republic is concerned.

[Groundhawg]

28. Right now, there is not a majority of either party that wants to do away with the fillibuster

As a matter of fact, I can't find where a majority of either party has even wanted to do away with it.

[Funtatlaguy]

21. A million times this. How does everyone not see this.

[kelly1mm]

5. Until I see Democrats OR Republicans support ending the filibuster when they are in the minority

I will chalk all this talk up to political posturing. There are MULTIPLE recent instances of politicians such as President Obama, Senator Schumer, President Biden etc vigorously defending the filibuster when they were in the minority and it was the only safeguard against a 'banana republic' .....

[brush]

20. Why do you think that? Every other branch of government, federal, state, county...

and local have no such thing as a filibuster where the minority can rule the majority and we haven't become a banana republic. It's only the US Senate where it was installed so southern states could maintain slavery and in modern times so dixiecrats and subsequently, republicans could halt civil rights bills from passing. It's not in the Constitution (look it up).

It needs to go. The House functions just fine without a filibuster, as do all other of our nation's representative bodies.

[kelly1mm]

23. I don't care about the filibuster at all

What I am saying is that politicians of both parties vigorously defend the filibuster when they are in the minority. As for becoming a ‘banana republic’ you should ask Senator Schumer as that is what he claimed we would become if we got rid of the filibuster in 2017, when Democrats were in the minority.

[brush]

24. So do you agree it should go? Democracies/democratic republics...

are supposed to be about majority rules, not the minority can stop the majority. And if members of either party have once advocating keeping the filibuster, who wouldn't if the rule is on the books? But we well know, and have known for years, that the filibuster creates roadblocks to progress and is the reason why the Senate is broken. Nothing can get done.

If Sinema and Manchin hadn't insisted on 60 votes to pass the BBB bill and the voting rights bills, the benefits of all of those bills would've been flowing to the nation for several months and voters would've realized that the Democratic administration was responsible for all of the benefits coming to them and our chances of keeping our Congressional majorities would be very high.

Now with the filibuster denying the BBB and voting rights bills, most likely we will lose our majorities in the mid-terms and all of Biden's agenda will be stalled and nothing will be accomplished for the last two years of his term.

Good governance that provides benefits to the commonweal should be rewarded by the voters, not thwarted by an antiquate rule designed to keep non-whites down and in their place. The filibuster needs to go.

[kelly1mm]

25. I am indifferent to if the filibuster stays or goes. I think getting rid of it will allow the

party in power, especially it they have a 'trifecta' like Democrats do now to make significant changes much more easily, which certainly can be good as well as bad depending on the policies pushed through. You have elequently argued the majority rules position but I think Sen Sinema made a good point that getting rid of it will likely lead to bigger 'swings' in federal policy depending of the party in power. I also note that Democrats have a built in disadvantage in the Senate where less populated, rural states have outsized representation, which from a practicle perspective could be a reason to keep the filibuster.

[brush]

26. Indifferent to the rule that keeps the Senate broken?

That's your view? And Sinema's posturing is designed to position her for a presidential run, nothing more. There've been a few posts the last few days which have exposed her huge ego and her Dunning-Kruger mindset. She thinks she's the smarted person in any room she enters and could care less what her party's agenda is.

[kelly1mm]

27. I see where it has helped us in the past. Democrats used it 314 times in the Trump years including

to save the ACA. So I see that it severly hampers the Republicans when they are in the majority (a good thing) and it severly hampers the Democrats when they are in the majority (a bad thing). Is getting rid of it and allowing major swings in federal policy every few years a good thing? For example, one could see abortion rights going from federaly protected to federally banned every few years.

Perhaps I am just worried about the unintended consequences of getting rid of the filibuster along with being wary of the structural advantages Republicans already have in the Senate.

[brush]

31. If Dems deliver good goverance we will keep Congressional...

majorities delivered by voters, much as we did during the many FDR years and the New Deal programs. When has any republican admin since Eisenhower (who would be a moderate Dem today), ever delivered programs beneficial to the majority of voters and not to corporations and the rich?

It just doesn't happen. Dems should be willing to take our chances on that.

And you should check out this video.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017705674

[Septua]

6. The Republicans have ALREADY...

..carved it to suit their needs numerous times when they had control. And will do it again...they don't play by the rules or norms or ethical behavior.

[secondwind]

9. If we pass the Voting Rights Bill, the GOP has less of

a chance to win elections.

Filibuster be damned. THIS IS THE MONENT.

[BlueTsunami2018]

17. They don't need to kill it, we do.

Republicans don’t want to govern. All they want to do is push tax cuts for the 1% and pack the courts with far right loons, both of which they can do with simple majority votes.

Democrats actually want to pass meaningful legislation, which can never happen with the filibuster in place. Of course, with such wonderful people as Manchin and Sinema playing defense for the 1%, it wouldn’t matter even if we did do it.

The bad guys always win.

[Roisin Ni Fiachra]

22. Republicans in many states are changing voting laws at the state level to make it difficult to

impossible for voters in Democratic counties to vote, in order to ensure that Republicans always win federal elections in those states.

This will lead to permanent takeover of the Federal Government by vicious, ignorant, authoritarian, dishonest fascist Republicans.

Ending the filibuster now is the only chance we have to prevent a permanent fascist takeover of our country. Once they get in power by limiting the ability of Democrats to vote, they will expand these limitations in order to create a one party authoritarian fascist state.

I'll take the chance on ending the filibuster now to prevent the fascist takeover of our country, rather than retain the filibuster, which will ensure a fascist minority takeover our country.

[Celerity]

29. No, the Rethugs will not do away with filibuster if they regain the Senate, as it almost always only

fucks us, not them. They love the filibuster.

The filibuster hurts only Senate Democrats -- and Mitch McConnell knows that. The numbers don't lie.

My own add - Sinema wants a 60 vote threshold on most all of any Senate action. Not joking. She also wants to repeal the 2 mini-nuke exceptions on the books now, and also do away with reconciliation.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/filibuster-hurts-only-senate-democrats-mitch-mcconnell-knows-n1255787

snip

Cutting off debate in the Senate so legislation can be voted on is done through a procedure called "cloture," which requires three-fifths of the Senate — or 60 votes — to pass. I went through the Senate's cloture votes for the last dozen years from the 109th Congress until now, tracking how many of them failed because they didn't hit 60 votes. It's not a perfect method of tracking filibusters, but it's as close as we can get. It's clear that Republicans have been much more willing — and able — to tangle up the Senate's proceedings than Democrats. More important, the filibuster was almost no impediment to Republican goals in the Senate during the Trump administration. Until 2007, the number of cloture votes taken every year was relatively low, as the Senate's use of unanimous consent agreements skipped the need to round up supporters. While a lot of the cloture motions did fail, it was still rare to jump that hurdle at all — and even then, a lot of the motions were still agreed to through unanimous consent. That changed when Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 and McConnell first became minority leader. The number of cloture motions filed doubled compared to the previous year, from 68 to 139.

Things only got more dire as the Obama administration kicked off in 2009, with Democrats in control of the House, the Senate and the White House. Of the 91 cloture votes taken during the first two years of President Barack Obama's first term, 28 — or 30 percent — failed. All but three failed despite having majority support. The next Congress was much worse after the GOP took control of the House: McConnell's minority blocked 43 percent of all cloture votes taken from passing. Things were looking to be on the same course at the start of Obama's second term. By November 2013, 27 percent of cloture votes had failed even though they had majority support. After months of simmering outrage over blocked nominees grew, Senate Democrats triggered the so-called nuclear option, dropping the number of votes needed for cloture to a majority for most presidential nominees, including Cabinet positions and judgeships. The next year, Republicans took over the Senate with Obama still in office. By pure numbers, the use of the filibuster rules skyrocketed under the Democratic minority: 63 of 123 cloture votes failed, or 51 percent. But there's a catch: Nothing that was being voted on was covered by the new filibuster rules. McConnell had almost entirely stopped bringing Obama's judicial nominees to the floor, including Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

McConnell defended the filibuster on the Senate floor last week, reminding his counterparts of their dependence on it during President Donald Trump's term. "Democrats used it constantly, as they had every right to," he said. "They were happy to insist on a 60-vote threshold for practically every measure or bill I took up." Except, if anything, use of the filibuster plummeted those four years. There are two main reasons: First, and foremost, the amount of in-party squabbling during the Trump years prevented any sort of coordinated legislative push from materializing. Second, there wasn't actually all that much the Republicans wanted that needed to get past the filibuster in its reduced state after the 2013 rule change. McConnell's strategy of withholding federal judgeships from Obama nominees paid off in spades, letting him spend four years stuffing the courts with conservatives. And when Trump's first Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, was filibustered, McConnell didn't hesitate to change the rules again. Trump's more controversial nominees also sailed to confirmation without any Democratic votes. Legislatively, there were only two things Republicans really wanted: tax cuts and repeal of Obamacare. The Trump tax cuts they managed through budget reconciliation, a process that allows budget bills to pass through the Senate with just a majority vote.

Republicans tried to do the same for health care in 2017 to avoid the filibuster, failing only during the final vote, when Sen. John McCain's "no" vote denied them a majority. The repeal wouldn't have gone through even if the filibuster had already been in the grave. As a result, the number of successful filibusters plummeted: Over the last four years, an average of 7 percent of all cloture motions failed. In the last Congress, 298 cloture votes were taken, a record. Only 26 failed. Almost all of the votes that passed were on nominees to the federal bench or the executive branch. In fact, if you stripped out the nominations considered in the first two years of Trump's term, the rate of failure would be closer to 15 percent — but on only 70 total votes. There just wasn't all that much for Democrats to get in the way of with the filibuster, which is why we didn't hear much complaining from Republicans. Today's Democrats aren't in the same boat. Almost all of the big-ticket items President Joe Biden wants to move forward require both houses of Congress to agree. And given McConnell's previous success in smothering Obama's agenda for political gain, his warnings about the lack of "concern and comity" that Democrats are trying to usher in ring hollow. In actuality, his warnings of "wait until you're in the minority again" shouldn't inspire concern from Democrats. So long as it applies only to legislation, the filibuster is a Republicans-only weapon. There's nothing left, it seems, for the GOP to fear from it — aside from its eventual demise.

snip