Jump to content

Abolish the filibuster!


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

What if I told you the democrats don’t currently have 50 votes to do it?
Ive been onboard with ending the filibuster for years.  but blaming liz warren for its continued existence is stupid.  it’s not her fault. Publically it’s Manchin, Sinema, and Tester’s fault.  privately,  i think there’s another 3-5 democrats who aren’t convinced either.
If you move to the nuclear option, it does create a bunch of headaches associated with other procedural things that are rarely enforced in the senate. they can be overcome, but they will make everything messy.
Don't get mad at me just because you didn't know it was 50+1.
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

What if I told you the democrats don’t currently have 50 votes to do it?

Ive been onboard with ending the filibuster for years.  but blaming liz warren for its continued existence is stupid.  it’s not her fault. Publically it’s Manchin, Sinema, and Tester’s fault.  privately,  i think there’s another 3-5 democrats who aren’t convinced either.

If you move to the nuclear option, it does create a bunch of headaches associated with other procedural things that are rarely enforced in the senate. they can be overcome, but they will make everything messy.

Tester has been more open about it than any of the other moderate/red state Dem Senators. I wouldn’t lump him in with them. 

Manchin, Sinema, King and Feinstein, if she knows where she is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

Tester has been more open about it than any of the other moderate/red state Dem Senators. I wouldn’t lump him in with them. 

Manchin, Sinema, King and Feinstein, if she knows where she is. 

I also secretly suspect Coons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, elfenix said:
4 hours ago, Bateshorn said:
What if I told you the democrats don’t currently have 50 votes to do it?
Ive been onboard with ending the filibuster for years.  but blaming liz warren for its continued existence is stupid.  it’s not her fault. Publically it’s Manchin, Sinema, and Tester’s fault.  privately,  i think there’s another 3-5 democrats who aren’t convinced either.
If you move to the nuclear option, it does create a bunch of headaches associated with other procedural things that are rarely enforced in the senate. they can be overcome, but they will make everything messy.

Don't get mad at me just because you didn't know it was 50+1.

I didn't respond to your point because it's grossly reductive and not representative of the real process.  Because the previous question can not be moved, currently overcoming an objection to proceeding requires 3/5, which the presiding office will uphold, requiring the ruling of the chair to be overruled.  There's your 50+1, smart guy.  Warren cannot bring up measures before the Senate without Schumer or McConnell's express consent.  She couldn't force the issue unless Schumer wanted her to.

But it comes with a whole host of problems that gum up how the Senate actually functions.  For one, there's a host of ways the R's can drag out committee hearings or force adjournments that make the senate very dysfunctional.  Lots of things in the Senate are done according to either tradition or handshake agreement based on very arcane rules.  The body is not set up to run on majority rule the way the House is.  There's no equivalent Rules Committee to set the terms of debate and constrain floor shenanigans.

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, David Dennison said:

They have three and a half long years to worry about that.

Or they are free to become Republicans.

Call their bluff.

That's bold talk when you are sitting on a 50-50 senate.  You want a 7-3 Supreme Court or a potential 8-2? How about all those aging Clinton appellate justices that want to retire? What about stupid Hunter Biden Investigations 24/7.  How's the infrastructure bill going to work when McConnell has the gavel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

only schumer can offer a rules change, and without 60 votes, it would fail. 

I do genuinely appreciate how you said this and now you're just posting your way through it.

Respect.

I find your "wait for a more convenient season" attitude disgusting and your fear-mongering useless and ultimately harmful, but I absolutely respect your dedication to plowing ahead despite being so laughably wrong about a basic component of this.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

That's bold talk when you are sitting on a 50-50 senate.  You want a 7-3 Supreme Court or a potential 8-2? How about all those aging Clinton appellate justices that want to retire? What about stupid Hunter Biden Investigations 24/7.  How's the infrastructure bill going to work when McConnell has the gavel?

Fuck me I hope Breyer retires this summer and we replace him with a 40 year old 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I do genuinely appreciate how you said this and now you're just posting your way through it.

Respect.

I find your "wait for a more convenient season" attitude disgusting and your fear-mongering useless and ultimately harmful, but I absolutely respect your dedication to plowing ahead despite being so laughably wrong about a basic component of this.

A rules change takes 60.  Overruling the presiding officer interpretation of the existing rules takes 50+1.  It's pedantic, but it's true.    I'm literally telling what are the complications of doing it by this path. 

I noticed you chose not ton include my next sentence:

Quote

barring that, they are left with the nuclear option, which is effectively the 50+Harris dems just over ruling the gop on every motion based on a ruling of the chair . think of a horrible Robert’s rules of order slugfest.

How many times do I have to say I'm for this? Not only would I do it.  5 minutes after, I'd introduce a resolution to bring the District into the union so you can pick up 2 more democratic votes by the end of the spring. I've literally talked about this issue at an event with MD MOC as a constituent.

But I'm not Joe Manchin. So it's not my call. But go on with your bad self for putting this shit on me.  

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

A rules change takes 60.  Overruling the presiding officer interpretation of the existing rules takes 50+1.  It's pedantic, but it's true.    I'm literally telling what are the complications of doing it by this path.

How many times do I have to say I'm for this? Not only would I do it.  5 minutes after, I'd introduce a resolution to bring the District into the union so you can pick up 2 more democratic votes by the end of the spring. I've literally talked about this issue at an event with MD MOC as a constituent.

But I'm not Joe Manchin. So it's not my call. But go on with your bad self for putting this shit on me.  

Just disregard the rule. Completely. Act like it doesn't exist. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

That's bold talk when you are sitting on a 50-50 senate.  You want a 7-3 Supreme Court or a potential 8-2? How about all those aging Clinton appellate justices that want to retire? What about stupid Hunter Biden Investigations 24/7.  How's the infrastructure bill going to work when McConnell has the gavel?

Passing overwhelmingly popular legislation is absolutely worth the risk.

Failing to pass that legislation will result in Republican majority in both Houses come 2023.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Passing overwhelmingly popular legislation is absolutely worth the risk.

Failing to pass that legislation will result in Republican majority in both Houses come 2023.

I don't disagree with this.  But I'm not the senior senator from West Virginia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Bateshorn, what sense do you have that this is really an orchestrated campaign to show the public that the GOP will do nothing but obstruct (and use that messaging to get the few reluctant Dem senators to come around)?

On the one hand, I think this charade is kind of stupid and unnecessary. On the other hand, it seems like they might actually have a coherent messaging strategy and are actually competently carrying it out. While I don't love the strategy, the fact that they even seem to actually have one is pretty damned amazing. We're talking an upgrade in Dem political competence from F- to a solid B-, which would be an astronomical improvement. Please tell me I'm not just seeing something I want to see here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, I think it's a great strategy.

If they just go whole hog abandon the filibuster after 2-3 months with the majority, they are going to get KILLED by screams of overreach and other bullshit by the GQP and their friendly media.  The Sunday show hacks like Chuck Todd are salivating at it too.

But if we have concrete evidence of GQP doing full on obstruction of popular legislation like infrastructure, voting rights, gun control (after another mass shooting), I think the public will be more supportive and Manchin and Sinema can save face by pointing to the obstruction. 

Remember, memories are short.  We need obstruction THIS TIME to make our case, not what happened years ago under Obama.  People don't remember that far back. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

I mean, I think it's a great strategy.

If they just go whole hog abandon the filibuster after 2-3 months with the majority, they are going to get KILLED by screams of overreach and other bullshit by the GQP and their friendly media.  The Sunday show hacks like Chuck Todd are salivating at it too.

But if we have concrete evidence of GQP doing full on obstruction of popular legislation like infrastructure, voting rights, gun control (after another mass shooting), I think the public will be more supportive and Manchin and Sinema can save face by pointing to the obstruction. 

Remember, memories are short.  We need obstruction THIS TIME to make our case, not what happened years ago under Obama.  People don't remember that far back. 

I fucking hate that you are probably right.  Especially that last part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I hope this is part of a larger "well, we tried," strategy before they do what is necessary. There is no way they'll find ten Republicans to support this bill.

 

It is. The stupidity of our political system, like most things in this country, we have to play to the lowest common denominator. It's political theater. Instead of just abolishing it, we have to waste two months going through the motions in a turtle tic-tac-toe game. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Js1 said:

I mean, I think it's a great strategy.

If they just go whole hog abandon the filibuster after 2-3 months with the majority, they are going to get KILLED by screams of overreach and other bullshit by the GQP and their friendly media.  The Sunday show hacks like Chuck Todd are salivating at it too.

But if we have concrete evidence of GQP doing full on obstruction of popular legislation like infrastructure, voting rights, gun control (after another mass shooting), I think the public will be more supportive and Manchin and Sinema can save face by pointing to the obstruction. 

Remember, memories are short.  We need obstruction THIS TIME to make our case, not what happened years ago under Obama.  People don't remember that far back. 

Remember ACB? This is a three-day story once they do it. Dems are just pussies. Making a debate of this is the worst thing they can do. Jus rip the fucking bandaid. 

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

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

I mean, I think it's a great strategy.

If they just go whole hog abandon the filibuster after 2-3 months with the majority, they are going to get KILLED by screams of overreach and other bullshit by the GQP and their friendly media.  The Sunday show hacks like Chuck Todd are salivating at it too.

But if we have concrete evidence of GQP doing full on obstruction of popular legislation like infrastructure, voting rights, gun control (after another mass shooting), I think the public will be more supportive and Manchin and Sinema can save face by pointing to the obstruction. 

Remember, memories are short.  We need obstruction THIS TIME to make our case, not what happened years ago under Obama.  People don't remember that far back. 

I think you're right on this, but this is why I think it wouldn't really matter if they just went ahead and abolished it today. Nobody will remember what Chuck Todd said about filibuster abolition in March of 2021 by November 2022, and I don't think process complaints move many people anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I give up on this.  Democrats blowing it as always.  Filibuster should have been jettisoned immediately after zero republicans voted for the covid relief.  That was the best opportunity, politically speaking.  The cost goes up as time goes on and democrats are determined to suck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I give up on this.  Democrats blowing it as always.  Filibuster should have been jettisoned immediately after zero republicans voted for the covid relief.  That was the best opportunity, politically speaking.  The cost goes up as time goes on and democrats are determined to suck. 

So they should have just blown off the rule?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

Remember ACB? This is a three-day story once they do it. Dems are just pussies. Making a debate of this is the worst thing they can do. Jus rip the fucking bandaid. 

Especially tying it to something as racially charged as voting rights.

Good god, it's like they want to lose.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Especially tying it to something as racially charged as voting rights.

Good god, it's like they want to lose.

They are probably going to lose anyway. This way, they are going to get the voting rights bill passed before election season starts. They'll probably get some other things passed along the way. They have about a year to get it all done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Js1 said:

I mean, I think it's a great strategy.

If they just go whole hog abandon the filibuster after 2-3 months with the majority, they are going to get KILLED by screams of overreach and other bullshit by the GQP and their friendly media.  The Sunday show hacks like Chuck Todd are salivating at it too.

But if we have concrete evidence of GQP doing full on obstruction of popular legislation like infrastructure, voting rights, gun control (after another mass shooting), I think the public will be more supportive and Manchin and Sinema can save face by pointing to the obstruction. 

Remember, memories are short.  We need obstruction THIS TIME to make our case, not what happened years ago under Obama.  People don't remember that far back. 

este

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like the play is getting put out there now.  Angus King, who was seen as one of the 4 or 5 Dem vote obstacles to overturning the filibuster, wrote this for WaPo:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/24/angus-king-filibuster-republicans/

Quote

As we enter this new Congress with a new president and a new Senate majority (barely), the question for me is how Mitch McConnell and his Republican colleagues will play their hand; if they are willing to work to find compromise and consensus on important initiatives (infrastructure, voting rights or immigration reform, for example), the importance of getting rid of the filibuster diminishes. If, on the other hand, they just say no, the necessity — and likelihood — of filibuster reform would only increase. That is to say, in large measure the outcome is in their hands.

Definitely teeing up the "Republicans refuse to work with us and just want to obstruct - time to reform (or abolish) the filibuster" 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What exactly are we waiting for here? The house has passed plenty of legislation for Senate republicans to obstruct. Schumer isn’t pushing floor debate yet because? I’m honestly embarrassed how many people believe there’s some 3D chess being played here. 

With S.1, they’re calling witnesses in committee. Can’t have floor debate when Schumer/Turtle/Cruz/Klobuchar are tied up there. CSPAN3 if you’re interested.

IIRC, we won’t see any votes until post-Easter. House was off this past week and Senate was committee-only.

Edited by TheStoicPaisano
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also finally got the Cabinet confirmed.  Took a while. 

They also have a lot of judicial vacancies to start preparing for too.   7 Court of Appeals and 61 district court vacancies for Biden to start filling.  I'd also wager we are 3-4 months out from the first SCOTUS vacancy for Biden, as I think Breyer retires after this term ends. 

Plus the 3 new USPS Board of Governors nominations to get through.  Gotta fix that fucking clusterfuck. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TheStoicPaisano said:

With S.1, they’re calling witnesses in committee. Can’t have floor debate when Schumer/Turtle/Cruz/Klobuchar are tied up there. CSPAN3 if you’re interested.

IIRC, we won’t see any votes until post-Easter. House was off this past week and Senate was committee-only.

Hey look an actual answer that isn't just personal attack posturing!

Much appreciated.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Js1 said:

 

 

That article feels a bit like red meat and I don't want to get my hopes up, but this was certainly encouraging:

Quote

People close to Biden tell us he’s feeling bullish on what he can accomplish, and is fully prepared to support the dashing of the Senate’s filibuster rule to allow Democrats to pass voting rights and other trophy legislation for his party.

  • He loves the growing narrative that he’s bolder and bigger-thinking than President Obama.
  • This temptation to go even bigger, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell insists, will create such a fissure between the parties that he compared it this week to "nuclear winter."

But we're told Biden won’t hesitate. Just as he passed the $1.9 trillion COVID rescue package with zero Republican votes and zero regrets, his team sees little chance he's going to be able to rewire the government in his image if he plays by the rules of bringing in at least 10 Republicans.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...