Let's talk about Thune saying no to Trump's talking filibuster.... - Belle of the Ranch

[TexasTowelie]

Well, howdy there Internet people. It's Belle again. So, today we're going to talk about Thune saying no to Trump's talking filibuster.

The cause du jour of a lot of the right-wing commentators who have a very deep understanding of how the Senate works have decided that it would be a great idea for Republicans to go back to the talking filibuster. The Senate seems unwilling to do so, and that has prompted some questions about why Republicans don't want to do something that could in theory give them more power. The talking filibuster is a mechanism that would require senators to actually speak to block a piece of legislation instead of just requiring the 60 votes by default. Here's a message.

Belle, “so Senate Republicans don't have the votes to move to a talking filibuster, and they made it sound like they aren't even close. I remember in the past that pretty much everybody on your team has said this is a good idea. Um, WTF, why won't they do something that will give them more power that even you think is a good idea?”

The reason most of us think it's a good idea is because it makes senators more accountable to the people they're supposed to represent, which is exactly why Republicans and some Democrats, for that matter, don't want it to happen. The Republicans in support of it think that it would mean that Democrats would get up and talk for a while and then they'd get their vote.

Okay. But then what? Every single amendment, every single piece of legislation gets the same treatment. When these giant bills that are an attack on the working class with a little window dressing, like the one Big Beautiful Bill, come through, Democrats could launch an amendment to protect rural healthcare. and then Republicans would have to go on the record with a vote about that specific issue or filibuster it themselves. The filibuster protects senators from uncomfortable or politically damaging votes. Without that protection, party line votes in the Senate will become more rare.

Republican Senate Majority Leader Thune hinted to this in less direct terms when he said, "The talking filibuster issue is one on which there is not certainly a unified Republican conference, and there would have to be. If you go down that path, you're talking about the need to table what are going to be numerous amendments and an ability to keep 50 Republicans unified pretty much on every single vote and there's just not there isn't support for doing that at this point.”

Many of the people pushing the idea are from the House. And Thune said, “there are always House members who are giving us advice and encouragement. We sure appreciate that.” If you missed it, that was severe sarcasm. That's as close as you get to just shut up and stay on your side of Capitol Hill as you're going to get. House members run in districts. Senate members run statewide. It's completely different dynamics.

Why are Republican senators adamantly opposed to it? For the same reasons liberals, progressives, and lefties, who really understand the Senate, are rubbing their hands together and smiling, wishing they would. If they do it, it'll be a mess at first, but the long-term results over the next 8 years would heavily favor progressive working-class policies.

Go ahead and vote against that amendment to help the people in your state because of your party line, Senator. I'm sure it won't matter on election day.

Anyway, it's just a thought. Y'all have a good day.