General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsJoe Manchin said there is no precedent to end a fillibuster with 51 votes.
He also said that you cannot break a rule to make a rule -also suggesting there is no precedent in the Senate to change rules with only 51 votes. However, every rule change in recent history was done with 51 votes. Right?
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)Have obviously been done before. He just doesn't want to do it so he's spinning justifications.
I can understand that there are risks to carve outs but they just did one a month ago so that tells me those two just don't think voting rights are worthy.
TheBlackAdder
(28,214 posts).
.
Irish_Dem
(47,402 posts)Why not just say how he will vote on a bill and leave it at that?
Earth-shine
(4,044 posts)closer and closer to the next election.
Irish_Dem
(47,402 posts)Earth-shine
(4,044 posts)Both think they'll be happier (or richer) with Republican majorities.
Irish_Dem
(47,402 posts)Has gone way beyond specific issues.
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)He cosponsored and voted in favor of S. RES. 21, which required that Senators who wish to filibuster a bill must actually take the floor and make remarks. The measure failed.
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)Theres a difference between supporting a thing (bill or rule) and being willing to blow up the filibuster to achieve that thing.
He has said multiple times (just in the last year) that he would support changes like requiring a speaking filibuster) but each time rejected attempts not force the change with a simple majority
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)Totally makes sense
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)And made sense to everyone else until about 15 seconds ago (politically speaking)
He doesnt support 51 votes making changes but supports 60 votes making changes - even for things that he would be one of the 51 for. It would actually be hypocritical to say Im for a lower standard for things that I want to pass
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)Would abide by a false barrier that they want to get rid of in the first place.
It goes double for those who could easily get rid of the process if they wanted to.
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)He never said that he wanted to get rid of the filibuster.
That confusion is common here. Many hear talking filibuster and interpret it to mean what Schumer is currently hinting at (i.e., Once they stop talking, 51 votes can pass the bill). Manchin has never supported that.
What he has supported is making the filibuster more painful - by which he means that you shouldnt be able to block a bill by merely saying that 41 votes oppose it
and then not having a political consequences for blocking popular legislation. That if you refuse to cut off debate, then you actually have to debate and tell people why youre opposing the legislation - so that the opposition can cost you elections if the voters disagree.
Consistent with that - he has in multiple prior occasions voted for cloture and tried to shame Republicans for their obstruction of a good bill. But that cant rationally be spun as trying to kill the cloture standard currently in the rules
wellst0nev0ter
(7,509 posts)Sure sounds like a talking filibuster to me.
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)... anything that backs up his willingness to end the filibuster to reform the filibuster. Let alone anything close to Schumer's more recent trial balloon to try to use Rule XIX as a back-door stab at the same rule change.
It's also not the same "talking filibuster" that many are pushing for:
From the floor debate (Sen Merkeley)
There are some who said we must make sure we protect the rights of the minority. The talking filibuster does exactly that. We still need 60 votes to close debate. My colleague from Oregon, Senator WYDEN, was just here. If there were an issue affecting Oregon that we must oppose, the two of us alone could take and hold this floor back and forth to make sure this body doesnt run over the rights of Oregon as long as we have the 40 colleagues with us to avoid cloture. That is the way it is now and that is the way it will be
under the talking filibuster.
I don't see anything inconsistent with that position and his current position.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)... in the Wapos explanation.
If they REALLY had 60 votes, including some GQP, there was no need for the change !!
They could've just voted for start and end cloture with those 60 votes and be done with it.
Manchin and Synema are full of shit
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)Schumer had backed himself into a corner by declaring that he wouldn't use reconciliation to raise the debt ceiling and McConnell had backed himself into a corner where republicans insisted that we had to go it alone.
They found a way for both to save face without technically breaking their previous positions. 60 votes allowed them to end the filibuster and democrats still had to raise the ceiling on their own. Everyone wins and everyone loses. Ten republicans get to vote for cloture without having to say that they voted for cloture... and we had to go it alone without actually relying on reconciliation.
But voting to proceed to the bill and voting for the bill are not at all inconsistent with a position that says that you shouldn't change to a 51 vote standard to proceed to the bill.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts).... NOT stating he'll apply to voter rights.
FULL
OF
SHIT
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)60 votes ended the filibuster.
Exactly the same as would be required to end it for voting rights.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)FBaggins
(26,760 posts)60 votes gets past a filibuster.
That's sorta how it works.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)... on that subject and so far he's not been.
Spell it out and stick to it, Manchin aint done that with voter rights and the "bypass" yet.
uponit7771
(90,364 posts)He's at minimum being deceptive and just using strict double talk to hide the deception.
For instance he doesn't want the voting rights bill and stated that MULTPLE times first half of last year.
He's now using the filibuster as cover for that, the lie or deception here is to hang on to the filibuster vs stating what he really wants and that's to keep the voting laws the way they are.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)To do it for the debt ceiling"blow up the filibuster?"
Such a disingenuous argument.
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)See how easy that was?
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)He never said I won't vote to do this if the Republicans don't vote for cloture. It was VERY clear all fifty were willing to go alone if they didn't because it would have broken the country fiscally otherwise.
You know this but once again you play the Manchin is right role because you're cool with what he's doing.
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)...that also requires 60 votes and can itself be filibustered is not "blowing up the filibuster".
He never said I won't vote to do this if the Republicans don't vote for cloture.
??? How does that even make sense? He has said that he opposes changing the rules such that 41 senators can no longer block legislation. And he didn't. If 41 senators had opposed the budget gimmick that accelerated the time required for the debt ceiling increase, it wouldn't have passed.
He said "you can't play games with the debt ceiling."
So you really think that next time if Republicans refuse to do it, he'll say welp we tried, let's destroy the economy to protect the filibuster?
Of course he won't. Everyone knows he won't. He just got bailed out because a bare number of Republicans agreed last time.
And if somehow he does stick to it, then it will be the worst economic calamity of our existence as a country. So again of course he will as will Sinema.
We all know this but you're playing the defend those two at all costs game you always play.
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)Most people require chemical "enhancement" to achieve such wisdom. It must be so convenient to just declare what everyone else thinks and would do. Strawman much?
There isn't any evidence at all that he would support blowing up the filibuster for the debt ceiling when he had already admitted that we were going to need to use reconciliation to accomplish it.
This was a deal between republican and democratic leadership that intentionally gave cover to members on both sides. It isn't at all the same thing as changing a rule through "nuclear" means.
The fact that you can keep opining on the filibuster while ignoring the difference between 51 votes and 60+ is baffling... but also entertaining.
You have two choices, he's either so wedded to the filibuster that he'd destroy the economy to do so or he's not
Of course, you'd defend either decision he'd make lol
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)There was no need to destroy the filibuster to avoid destroying the economy. The filibuster already has an exception for reconciliation for debt ceiling increases. We always had the power to get it done. We just wanted the brinksmanship.
It's an entirely irrelevant example - and one suspects that you knew that all along. But I won't play that game.
Yes attacking 48 Dems to protect 2. Well done. Lol
FBaggins
(26,760 posts)The two nuclear changes were lower- but he voted against those
ColinC
(8,330 posts)Or is he referring to another thing in regards to "precedent"?
Calista241
(5,586 posts)branch nominees and their confirmation. The Legislative filibuster, which is what we're talking about here with voting rights, hasn't been broken since the filibuster's inception.
ColinC
(8,330 posts)Of course, the exception made for the tax law didn't fall under the modification you point out, but rather for a specific thing. There was also a recent exception made to vote for Mike Lee's amendment with a 51 vote exception when amendments typically need 60 votes to pass. There was also the exception made to the debt ceiling that allowed only 51 votes to pass without 60 votes to get it. There is plenty of precedent for making an exception -with nominees, with tax laws and with the debt ceiling. To say that a voting rights bill doesn't make the cut is just sillly...
There is not a specific precedent to voting rights, but there is a precedent to making exceptions in order to get things done. All of the above qualifies, and at the end of the day if Manchin actually wanted voting rights to pass, he would vote for this modification.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)And 14 Repubs voted for cloture, even if some or all of them didnt support final passage of the bill. Voting for cloture, while voting against a bill, has been a common practice for decades.
Tax laws, and other budgetary changes can be passed through reconciliation, which only requires a majority to pass.
qazplm135
(7,447 posts)He'd STILL have voted to break the filibuster.
Polybius
(15,481 posts)https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142855245
Wounded Bear
(58,712 posts)Calista241
(5,586 posts)tirebiter
(2,539 posts)BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)Doesnt care about any of this shit. Instead of making the lives of his own constituents better and fighting for those without, he has his staff spending their time researching chaff he can throw up to obscure his lack of patriotism and his greed for the almighty dollar.
BootinUp
(47,188 posts)Emile
(22,923 posts)caught up with this phony ass!