I don't want to change the filibuster at this point

[Tickle]

and I know that is not popular here but hear me out

if we didn't have the filibuster during TFG think about what our country would look like today.

Now think about this;
TFG appointed lots of judges. I don't care to know how many at this point, but!!!
Had we not change the filibuster in 2013 to allow majority to appoint judges TFG would
NOT have not been able to appoint those judges.
I remember why we did it, it was done because Obama couldn't get anything passed and I agreed with it.

I guess the question to ask yourself, would you rather have bad policy passed or no policy passed


With this being election year I hope we stop pursuing it. I know there is a lot of work for us to do but starting in June they will all be out for summer and running for election or re-election and it is a toss as to what will happen with the senate and congressional members. I've often heard any publicity is good for a politician so why do we give those two so much publicity?

[jimfields33]

1. I think many agree to a point

What the hope was that once the voting bill passed, republicans wouldn’t win in 2022.

[Calista241]

6. Yeah, but that is supremely wishful thinking.

Inflation, shortages, all kinds of shit will be weighing on the election, and we'll have to deal with the normal off year election cycle.

[qazplm135]

12. that was always a silly hope

of course they will win again at some point, maybe even in 2022.

One need look no further than VA which basically has full voting rights, they just turned out more than we did.

There's still a lot of them. We need to treat every election like it's the most important one, because it is.

We need to find a way to have presidential level turnout in every single election.

[Pachamama]

2. So you are opposed to changing the filibuster back to what was required in past?

To have to be present physically? To have to stand and speak?

What about a specific carve-out for voting rights?

[Tickle]

10. I'm good with that with going back to that

The biggest problem is voter suppression. Let's find a way to drive them to the polls so we win a bigger majority and we can move from there.

[Pachamama]

13. So what happens if lots of people vote but the counting of the votes especially decisions for the

…electoral process or decisions of what gets counted has been taken over?

[Tickle]

15. I actually discussed

that in another thread. I do work polls for my town and there is no way to cheat from where I was standing

[Pachamama]

22. Your town isn't the county or the state election boards

If you really believe that by working at the local level at the polls showed you that there is no way anyone where you were standing means that at the county or state election boards that no decisions will be made in future that will oppose the will of the people….

Take a good look at some of the laws being passed in various states.

[Tickle]

24. ok

good point I guess I could be a bit naïve to think it was all the same.

[Tatertot]

3. I'm for a return to a talking filibuster

It can still be used when need.
It’s apparent to the public, so they can approve or object to the political position
And it requires conviction of the individual or party to implement

[Calista241]

8. The problem is the minority can slow down legislation with a talking filibuster,

but they cannot stop it.

[Tickle]

19. that gives people enough

time to understand what is going on and know if their politician works for them

[Jazz Jon]

4. No further democracy

Sounds nice theoretically, but without a new law protecting voting and election integrity, we live in a post democratic world. Your arguments are all null and void because Trump will be the dictator of the former united states. And you will have no vote at all.

[spanone]

5. Well, 48 Democratic Senators disagree with you.

[Nevilledog]

7. You're on a roll today. Republicans can't cheat to win elections and filibuster is a good thing.

🧐

[Tickle]

20. thanks I know

it's my day off

[Nevilledog]

21. Umm....I was being sarcastic

You and I have completely opposite views on both of these issues.

[Tickle]

23. I did watch

faux today and it is my day off. My mind is on a roll

[unblock]

9. How many threads are we going to have on this topic?

Once again, if we get to the point where the filibuster matters for us -- i.e., Republican president and Republican senate (and then really matters when republicans also control the house), then we are totally screwed and the filibuster will not save us.

First, mcturtle can't be trusted to allow us to use the filibuster at all. Remember, he refused to even consider an Obama nominee in that's presidency's last year, then rammed through approval for Donnie's nominee. He will do anything for partisan advantage no matter what we do.

Second, republicans will contour to corrupt out government and our democratic safeguards and elections will become even more of a joke than they already are. We will not regain power for decades because prevent that will be number one on their agenda and they will change alll the rules to stay in power.

These
Are
Fascists

Don't trust them as if they were decent people

They are not.

[Tickle]

11. I didn't realize there

were lots of threads on this. I don't get here too often and there seems to be no way to look-up posts

[Pachamama]

16. If you become a star member of Democratic Underground there are great search functions

You haven’t been here long….but being a member makes a difference both in what you can contribute and support.

[Orangepeel]

14. yeah, republicans would NEVER had changed the filibuster to exempt judges if Dems hadn't

[unblock]

17. If there's one thing republicans are known for, it's making sure minorities get heard and respected

[mwooldri]

18. Filibuster or no, there will be a time it's the R's in charge.

A Repuke House, Senate and WH. Let's assume that the Senate is 50/50 - as it is now. Let's also assume it's Mitch McConnell in charge of the Senate.

Would the guy who effectively denied Merrick Garland's nomination to the Supreme Court on the basis of "we're in an election year" yet rammed through Amy Comey Barrett's nomination in an election month... would that guy exercise the nuclear option on something that is the priority of the WH and that all 50 R Senators support? And would all 50 R Senators go along with it? Or maybe we look at a worse situation : 55 R Senators, 45 D (plus allied I). Would six R's uphold the filibuster?

And when it came to the judges - I believe the big blocking of judges reached a tipping point when Mitch McConnell basically "filibustered" practically all of Obama's nominations to the judiciary. This forced Harry Reid to pull the nuclear option then. Flip to 2016, and guess what... McConnell pulled the nuclear option on the judges at the Supreme Court level.

Majority rule isn't too bad really. Just ask most other democratic countries.

[Tickle]

26. that was the point

I was trying to make. I remember Obama and Merrick Garland's nomination. I was in support of Senator Reid but when McConnel was it charge look what happened.

Some how I'm not expressing myself well

[Emile]

25. I would rather have democracy, do away with the filibuster!

[Mad_Machine76]

27. I definitely have mixed feelings about it

Republicans have abused the filibuster to the point that Congress (The Senate) has become a big joke as long as we don't have 60 or more Senators in terms of passing legislation. However, OTOH I'm cautious too about when the shoe is on the other foot. If it looked like we are going to be in charge of the Senate for an extended period of time, I'd probably feel less worried about it, but there is so much volatility in terms of party control of Congress, Republicans would be able to do a lot of crappy things too. And yeah, I know that they don't usually do much when they have control of the Senate and a Republican WH, however, it did restrain Trump some, so........?
I just don't know what the right answer is other than electing more and more Democrats until Republicans and Democrats like Manchin and Sinema are simply irrelevant.

[Tickle]

28. great last line nt

[Mad_Machine76]

33. My sig line

Or my last comment?

[Emile]

29. Republicans don't legislate unless it's tax cuts, so not to worried. They're

damn good at using the filibuster to block legislation. Give me democracy and do away with the filibuster!

[madville]

30. It only really matters if a Republican gets back in the WH

Biden could veto anything they passed without a filibuster regardless if they get majorities back in the House and Senate in 2022 or not. After 2024 is the wildcard.

I think we lose the House at the end of this year but could possibly retain the Senate majority. It would be gridlock then anyway with or without the filibuster. We need to put most of the effort into the Senate anyway just to be able to confirm judges and other confirmations.

I don’t see the filibuster surviving past the next time either party has all three (House, Senate, WH).

[Tickle]

31. the veto

I almost forgot. There's no way the senate would ever get a vetoed proof vote. I don't see us losing the senate either and I haven't given up on the house

[LonePirate]

32. If you spend all of your time on defense, you never make things better by going on offense.

Also, the filibuster is intended to thwart the rule of the majority, which is the founding principle and definition of democracy. If you support the filibuster, you are opposed to democracy.

Sure, you'll say the other side will implement bad things when they are elected. If that is what the majority has elected them to do, then so be it. If the majority does not like that, there will be another election in 2 or 4 or 6 years to reverse that original decision. So it boils down to whether or not you support democracy or the filibuster but you cannot support both.

[marie999]

34. If we change the filibuster, will we get 50 votes?