This lady tells it like it is, about the fight for democracy

[Caliman73]

20. I don't know. I don't have access to the rules of the Senate.

Question.

When did Democrats control the Senate to deny a Republican president a Supreme Court nominee? We were actually the first party in modern times to deny a nominee with Bork.

Cloture, as it stands right now, prevents a vote until "debate" is ended, which means that 60 Senators have to vote to end debate. Cloture has been changed several times, with Democrats eliminating it for circuit courts when Republicans were obstructing, then Republicans removing it from Supreme Court nominations. I agree that Cloture should be eliminated for Civil Rights legislation, or at very minimum, changed to make the Opposing party actually have to come out in public to talk about why they are denying a vote. Any filibuster that remains should be difficult for the minority party. However, the rule still stands. 2 Democratic Senators are blocking the changes in the filibuster not Republicans.

Right now, if Schumer tries to vote on changing the Senate rules and denying objections of Republican Senators, he will lose. Then it will be shown that he has no control over the caucus, which can lead to a vote of no confidence and the Democratic Party in the Senate would be in disarray as people vie to take his place. That might be a way that would make things worse, no?

The party with the majority has advantages over the minority party, but the minority has been afforded certain mechanisms to maintain some say. We have a 50/50 Senate right now with VP Harris as a tiebreaker, which she would almost certainly break to the Democratic Party's advantage. The problem as it stand now, is that we actually have a 48/52 Senate on changing voting rules. So, how do we get around that without just chucking everything and creating a chaotic power grab situation?

It isn't about Decorum. It is about the rules and values that we are defending. If you break the rules to "save the rules" where does that leave you in terms of your legitimacy in being the arbiter of the rules? We can certainly go with a might, or majority makes right situation, but then we have abandoned any idea of values greater than just holding power. Is that what you are advocating for? It is okay if you are, just be honest about it and then defend that.