Jump to content

Abolish the filibuster!


Recommended Posts

I feel like the filibuster issue is tied directly into the voter suppression issue.  Even though the Republican party has controlled the Senate for roughly 22 of the past 40 years, Republican senators have represented a majority of the nation’s population for only a single session over that period: from 1997 to 1998.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Well, yes, as it was designed by the founding fathers. As James Madison said, the Senate is "a necessary fence against the impulse of sudden and violent passions” of the people.

the wolf of wall street idgaf GIF

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Well, yes, as it was designed by the founding fathers. As James Madison said, the Senate is "a necessary fence against the impulse of sudden and violent passions” of the people.

That quote isn't actually an endorsement of permanent minority rule.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Well, yes, as it was designed by the founding fathers. As James Madison said, the Senate is "a necessary fence against the impulse of sudden and violent passions” of the people.

If I see James Madison driving somewhere, I will ram his car, and before he recovers from the airbag whacking him I will be up on top of his car kicking in his window and punching him in the jaw and if he tries to open the door I will let him then WHAM I pin him with the door like a bug and I start biting his ears and throat and just tearing out whatever I can sink my teeth into.

Bitch.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

Well, yes, as it was designed by the founding fathers. As James Madison said, the Senate is "a necessary fence against the impulse of sudden and violent passions” of the people.

The filibuster as it exists today was not instituted by the founding fathers.  So even if the original intent was to give the minority a real voice through the senate, it has been taken to grotesque proportions and is actively harming the country.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

We really need to stop pretending in this country that our founding fathers somehow could predict the future to such a degree that we ignore common sense simply because they were so wise.

  • Hook 'Em 6
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

We really need to stop pretending in this country that our founding fathers somehow could predict the future to such a degree that we ignore common sense simply because they were so wise.

Meryl Streep Yes GIF by SAG Awards

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

We really need to stop pretending in this country that our founding fathers somehow could predict the future to such a degree that we ignore common sense simply because they were so wise.

If we could resurrect some of them they'd be appalled that we pay so much deference to their views (or more accurately, what we say their views were), and then they'd see a modern bathroom and probably have a brain aneurysm. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This could prove to be significant:

What if, buried in the rules of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, there were a magical parliamentary trick that Democrats could use to unlock a third reconciliation bill this year?" the Politico report states. "Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer believes he has found it. It's called Section 304, and you're about to start hearing about it a lot. This section of the law that governs the congressional budgeting process essentially says that Congress may revisit and amend an already-passed budget resolution, like the one used to pass the Covid relief package. Or at least that's what Schumer aides are arguing."

According to an interview with a Schumer aide, "Recently, top policy aides to Majority Leader Schumer made the argument to the Senate Parliamentarian that Section 304 allows for at least one additional set of reconciliation bills related to revenue, spending and the public debt to be considered for Fiscal Year 2021."

 

https://www.alternet.org/2021/03/mitch-mcconnell-2651244179/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6861

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, yes, as it was designed by the founding fathers. As James Madison said, the Senate is "a necessary fence against the impulse of sudden and violent passions” of the people.

Yes that is why they have 6 year staggered terms. I don’t see how ceding all legislation to an obstructive minority party has anything to do with sudden and violent passions of the people.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Satchel said:

This could prove to be significant:

What if, buried in the rules of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, there were a magical parliamentary trick that Democrats could use to unlock a third reconciliation bill this year?" the Politico report states. "Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer believes he has found it. It's called Section 304, and you're about to start hearing about it a lot. This section of the law that governs the congressional budgeting process essentially says that Congress may revisit and amend an already-passed budget resolution, like the one used to pass the Covid relief package. Or at least that's what Schumer aides are arguing."

According to an interview with a Schumer aide, "Recently, top policy aides to Majority Leader Schumer made the argument to the Senate Parliamentarian that Section 304 allows for at least one additional set of reconciliation bills related to revenue, spending and the public debt to be considered for Fiscal Year 2021."

 

https://www.alternet.org/2021/03/mitch-mcconnell-2651244179/?utm_source=&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=6861

 

I mean, yay, I guess.  Could just make it so the majority can pass shit they have been elected to pass, but eh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

No discussion of the palimentarian decision, the details of which are beyond my ken, which seems to promise two additional bills, beyond rona relief and infrastructure, which are filibuster-proof?

I guess Arizona and West Virginia both lost the keys to the kingdom.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/senate/546215-senate-parliamentarian-to-let-democrats-bypass-filibuster-with-third-bill%3famp

Edited by Willfully Horn
Punctuation
Link to post
Share on other sites
No discussion of the palimentarian decision, the details of which are beyond my ken, which seems to promise two additional bills, beyond rona relief and infrastructure, which are filibuster-proof?
I guess Arizona and West Virginia both lost the keys to the kingdom.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/senate/546215-senate-parliamentarian-to-let-democrats-bypass-filibuster-with-third-bill%3famp

Bad link
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2021 at 3:02 PM, wildcat09 said:

If we could resurrect some of them they'd be appalled that we pay so much deference to their views (or more accurately, what we say their views were), and then they'd see a modern bathroom and probably have a brain aneurysm. 

I think the aneurysm would come when they saw a black man or woman walk past them that was as free to move about as anyone else. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

No discussion of the palimentarian decision, the details of which are beyond my ken, which seems to promise two additional bills, beyond rona relief and infrastructure, which are filibuster-proof?

I guess Arizona and West Virginia both lost the keys to the kingdom.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/senate/546215-senate-parliamentarian-to-let-democrats-bypass-filibuster-with-third-bill%3famp

Hs. They still need 50, man. Those states are just as primed as before. Honestly I’m not sure think isn’t bad news for the filibuster. It certainly kicks that can down the road. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SydneyCarton said:

Hs. They still need 50, man. Those states are just as primed as before. Honestly I’m not sure think isn’t bad news for the filibuster. It certainly kicks that can down the road. 

Which is, of course, their intention.

 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Willfully Horn said:

No discussion of the palimentarian decision, the details of which are beyond my ken, which seems to promise two additional bills, beyond rona relief and infrastructure, which are filibuster-proof?

I guess Arizona and West Virginia both lost the keys to the kingdom.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/senate/546215-senate-parliamentarian-to-let-democrats-bypass-filibuster-with-third-bill%3famp

How do you reckon?  The Democrats need 50 votes, and God knows they won't get any Rs.  That means that this gives Arizona and West Virginia their golden tickets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Our government is a fucking joke.  Other countries teach their kids what not to do by pointing to America.
 

Can’t wait for the next legislative permission slip from the unelected Senate parliamentarian!  It’s laughable this shit is reported as business as usual. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

How do you reckon?  The Democrats need 50 votes, and God knows they won't get any Rs.  That means that this gives Arizona and West Virginia their golden tickets.

I reckon their Senators won’t be asked to jettison the filibuster. Those Senators will need be courted for votes, but so will all other Senators. 

I’ve since learned the un-filibuster-able bills can only be spending bills, and that HR1 cannot be included among the pair of bills. Given that the only bill I’ve read under consideration seeks to help poor folk with kids, and that WV, in particular, is home to a disproportionate share of that demographic, I reckon Joe Manchin will be an ally, and not an obstacle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I reckon their Senators won’t be asked to jettison the filibuster. Those Senators will need be courted for votes, but so will all other Senators. 

I’ve since learned the un-filibuster-able bills can only be spending bills, and that HR1 cannot be included among the pair of bills. Given that the only bill I’ve read under consideration seeks to help poor folk with kids, and that WV, in particular, is home to a disproportionate share of that demographic, I reckon Joe Manchin will be an ally, and not an obstacle.

This is correct-ish.  Reconciliation only gives a 50+1 procedure to bills that deal with spending or revenue.  a pure authorization bill, to use an inside the beltway term, is not covered.  Which excludes HR 1 as drafted.  You could try to impose its provision by withholding a broad swath of federal funding unless states moved to implement its provisions, but that would be tricky to hold up in court. 

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this sausage being made?

"Joe Manchin: I will not vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster
Opinion by Joe Manchin III

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/joe-manchin-filibuster-vote/2021/04/07/cdbd53c6-97da-11eb-a6d0-13d207aadb78_story.html

"


"
Manchin says there is ‘no circumstance’ where he would vote to get rid of or ‘weaken’ the filibuster in blow to Biden agenda
By Colby Itkowitz

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/manchin-filibuster-biden/2021/04/07/03635ab2-97fd-11eb-b28d-bfa7bb5cb2a5_story.html

"

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can do a bunch of stuff through reconciliation, so they'll cling to that. The biggest losers for this reconciliation-only strategy are black Americans, so that's regrettable for the Democrats but they will concern-face and brow-furrow their way past it, in addition to furiously chiding anyone who says other things are possible.

Biden and Harris need to do a run through WV and AZ and use the bully pulpit to force Manchin and Sinema to get on board. But they won't.

And people who say they should are paid Russian operatives who want Trump back.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

They can do a bunch of stuff through reconciliation, so they'll cling to that. The biggest losers for this reconciliation-only strategy are black Americans, so that's regrettable for the Democrats but they will concern-face and brow-furrow their way past it, in addition to furiously chiding anyone who says other things are possible.

Biden and Harris need to do a run through WV and AZ and use the bully pulpit to force Manchin and Sinema to get on board. But they won't.

And people who say they should are paid Russian operatives who want Trump back.

Harris already got sideways with Manchin for doing precisely this in WV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

And... ?

Well, you‟re coward.”


“All right,” he said. “What of it?”


“Nothing as far as I‟m concerned. But please let‟s not talk, darling, because I‟m very sleepy.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

And it calls into question why you would claim they won’t do in the future what they have done in the past.

Was that interview them using the bully pulpit to push Manchin? Obviously Manchin was offended that she dared speak in his personal fiefdom, but I don't know if Harris's intention was to bully Manchin. 

I don't think either Harris or Biden will go to WV or AZ to push Manchin/Sinema on HR1 or the filibuster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Was that interview them using the bully pulpit to push Manchin? Obviously Manchin was offended that she dared speak in his personal fiefdom, but I don't know if Harris's intention was to bully Manchin. 

I don't think either Harris or Biden will go to WV or AZ to push Manchin/Sinema on HR1 or the filibuster.

Huh. 

I think Biden has incentive to work both Senators and so I can’t follow your reasoning, outside of your disdain of Democrats.

Manchin voted in the affirmative, I seem to recall.

Manchin did crab walk the 40 ‘Senators must be present’ balloon. Still, it is likely Sinema will be the tougher nut (case) to crack.

Edited by Willfully Horn
Spellfucked
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Was that interview them using the bully pulpit to push Manchin? Obviously Manchin was offended that she dared speak in his personal fiefdom, but I don't know if Harris's intention was to bully Manchin. 

I don't think either Harris or Biden will go to WV or AZ to push Manchin/Sinema on HR1 or the filibuster.

Maybe. Maybe not.

But what's stopping Chuck Schumer from blowing off the rules and forcing a vote?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, elfenix said:

Is this sausage being made?

"Joe Manchin: I will not vote to eliminate or weaken the filibuster
Opinion by Joe Manchin III

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/joe-manchin-filibuster-vote/2021/04/07/cdbd53c6-97da-11eb-a6d0-13d207aadb78_story.html

"


"
Manchin says there is ‘no circumstance’ where he would vote to get rid of or ‘weaken’ the filibuster in blow to Biden agenda
By Colby Itkowitz

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/manchin-filibuster-biden/2021/04/07/03635ab2-97fd-11eb-b28d-bfa7bb5cb2a5_story.html

"
 

This is not encouraging.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

But what's stopping Chuck Schumer from blowing off the rules and forcing a vote?

- Loyalty to Senate decorum and tradition
- Lack of confidence that he can whip the votes needed
- Lack of concern about the issues that have to be handled outside of reconciliation

Those would be my guesses.

  • Rage+1 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is not encouraging.

It's all theater from him.  With infrastructure going to the frontburner, and with the parliamentarian's ruling that the infrastructure bills can be done through reconciliation, there's no need for Manchin to go out on a limb and say he favors filibuster reform now.  He can go back to saying "not under any circumstances," and it's fine.

He needs to have a bill under active consideration and have the Republicans being unreasonable and unwilling to compromise so that he can dramatically come out and say "well, I have always supported the filibuster, but these Republicans are being so unreasonable now that I have no choice but to . . . ."

When HR1 comes up, that's when Manchin makes that dramatic move.  But until then, he's going to stay where he is.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, there's only so much "Work it out with the GOP" Manchin can push before the Senate stops moving any legislation and just becomes a nomination factory.  If Manchin wants to bring some bacon home and the GOP won't play, his going to have to say yes to either more reconciliation or ending the filibuster.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

If Manchin wants to bring some bacon home and the GOP won't play, his going to have to say yes to either more reconciliation or ending the filibuster.

He can bring bacon home through reconciliation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...