Nuking the Filibuster (1 Viewer)

[Semper]

Is this a good idea? Personally I am against it. I believe both sides lose. You shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules so you can get your way.

 

[J-DONK]

I don't believe he meant it in an insulting manner either.

I didn't. It's honestly weird that it was taken that way. My point was there is no "common ground" in Washington except for when the few sacred cows need funding. Sometimes, even then you get some brinkmanship. All that's left is what is a strategic advantage for your party. What's crazy is the members of each party are more partisan then the elected reps.

Democrats should, and probably will make cloture a simple majority at some point in the future. There isn't much point with Manchin blocking anything transformative.

 

[SFIDC3]

You know the reason I gave up on the political board and quit posting for so long? This small experiment is the same as the shirt show in D.C. Self righteous people who believe they are right and the other side is wrong. If we can't debate and discuss ideas without personal attacks, on such a small scale, why would we assume the clowns in D.C. can do it?

I hear you, and I respect your posts.

I think for a lot of us, when you have one side of the aisle (R’s) unable to acknowledge basic facts about any number of topics it makes it near impossible to have a meaningful conversation.

The D’s are far, far from perfect, I identify more as a left leaning independent…but at least most of the party is still….sane….the R’s have gone over the edge….I long for the days of the true conservatives running the R party….that actually cared about policy…while I don’t agree with much of their positions, at least most were willing to work together with the other party (which is what I think you alluded to earlier) those days are gone….

 

[zztop]

Umm I would say change should be made on a case by case basis. I don't like one side of our government having too much power and that goes both ways. We should be required to find common ground in our governing rules so our politicians should figure out a way to work together for the good of the country.

Ideally this is how things should be. It's been a long time since there was much of that going on though

 

[dtc]

I am not under a rock. I haven't cast blame on either party. I simply stated an opinion. I know what the R's did and I know what the D's did. They are petulant children who believe there way is the only way. I just happen to believe it takes common ground to make this country great for everyone.

What is it you see that the Republicans did? And, the democrats?

 

[zztop]

Just adding this bit of info:

Joe Manchin Lays Out Filibuster Changes He Supports

But the West Virginia senator still wants those changes to be made with support from Republicans.

www.huffpost.com

Manchin told PBS NewsHour reporter Lisa DesJardins on Tuesday that he supports a raft of rules changes to make the Senate “work better.” These include getting rid of the filibuster to begin debate on legislation, also known as the motion to proceed, changing the threshold to end a filibuster from 60 votes to three-fifths present and requiring a talking filibuster with senators limited to two speeches each.

“I’m not for breaking the filibuster, but I am for making the place work better by changing the rules,” Manchin said.

 

[Lapaz]

The value of the filibuster is not having legislation reversed too easily. Democrats can pass the best laws on voting rights, and when Republicans eventually get power again with simple majorities in the House and Senate, and the presidency, they can easily reverse all of the laws, and possibly put in place laws that prevent them from losing power. The problem with the filibuster is that it can be changed with a simple majority. While Manchin and Sinema may be against it, I don't know if there are any Republicans that would oppose it if they had a simple majority, so they might change it the moment they take the presidency and congress to make legislative changes easy anyway. Unless the filibuster can become more than a rule, such as at least legislated, but even better added as an amendment to the constitution, then it makes sense to get rid of it to attempt to get improved voting rights. I think the existing proposals may not garner Manchin and Sinema's votes, but I bet at least 2 Republicans can be convinced to make some changes, which would make Manchin and Sinema's opposition moot. Changes to clarify the Vice President's role on JAN 6th and preventing politicians from throwing out results with their own selected electors are the most crucial. Other changes to make voting easier would be great, but the most important thing is to assure that the real votes are counted.

 

[insidejob]

Couldn't find this thread yesterday to save my life.

Screw the filibuster.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Same. The fact that legislation can have 59 votes (more than enough to pass), yet 41 people can prevent it from even being voted on by simply not showing up to work is ridiculous. If you want to filibuster, great. Get your arse to the microphone and start talking.

Combine that with changing rules regarding cloture votes from 60% of duly elected senators to 60% of senators that bothered to show up and you preserve the filibuster, you just make the filibustering side actually participate.

Just adding this bit of info:

Joe Manchin Lays Out Filibuster Changes He Supports

But the West Virginia senator still wants those changes to be made with support from Republicans.

www.huffpost.com

Manchin told PBS NewsHour reporter Lisa DesJardins on Tuesday that he supports a raft of rules changes to make the Senate “work better.” These include gettingot rid of the filibuster to begin debate on legislation, also known as the motion to proceed, changing the threshold to end a filibuster from 60 votes to three-fifths present and requiring a talking filibuster with senators limited to two speeches each.

“I’m not for breaking the filibuster, but I am for making the place work better by changing the rules,” Manchin said.

I'm not saying that I'm Joe Manchin, but I'm also not saying that I'm not Joe Manchin...

 

[CoolBrees]

Yeah, Manchin’s proposal is reasonable (just feels weird typing that)

That better be done like tomorrow.

 

[coldseat]

I'm down with Manchin's proposal, if it actually comes to pass, but apparently he still wants Republican buy in, which is never going to happen. So I'm not holding my breath at this point.

This opinion piece makes some good points that I also mentioned on the last page:

This idea, that even a temporary filibuster carve-out betrays “who we are,” essentially posits that the Senate supermajority requirement is in some sense more faithful to American liberal constitutionalism than protecting voting rights is.

This is absurd. First, the idea that nixing the filibuster would “break the opportunity for the minority to participate completely” is unintentionally revealing about Manchin’s true stance. It’s false on its face: Needing a simple majority to pass legislation doesn’t stop senators from the minority party from entering into negotiations with the majority party to try to influence said legislation.

In fact, ending the filibuster might increase the incentive for a bloc of GOP senators to seek such negotiations. Without it, bills could pass with a majority of fewer than 60 votes, meaning, say, five moderate Republicans would have more opportunities to get on legislation with a real chance of passage, burnishing their bipartisan cred while delivering for constituents. Moderate Democrats who want to be seen working with Republicans would help that happen.
What ending the filibuster actually would stop is the opportunity for the minority party to participate entirely on its own terms. With the filibuster, virtually nothing can pass. This facilitates and encourages a deliberate opposition strategy of denying the president’s party legislative victories to make the government under that party more dysfunctional.

This is the reality of the “opportunity for the minority to participate” that Manchin is personally enabling. And it actually reduces the opportunity for more bipartisan legislation to pass — the opposite of what he suggests.

Second, you know who is actually working hard to “break the opportunity of the minority to participate”? GOP-controlled state legislatures are. They are passing restrictions on voting access in many states, and they’re doing so by simple majority — on a largely partisan basis.

Manchin himself agrees this is a serious problem. That’s why he supports the Freedom to Vote Act, which would curb such GOP efforts by creating baseline standards for early voting, same-day registration and voting by mail, while also limiting partisan capture of election machinery.

What Manchin opposes is achieving those monumentally important things on a partisan basis. But here’s the rub: Either Republicans will keep restricting voting on a partisan basis, or Democrats will protect and expand voting access on a partisan basis. Partisanship will prevail either way. The only question is which partisanship prevails.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/12/joe-manchin-filibuster-arguments-ludicrous/

 

[zztop]

only problem with this and Manchin's comments are... while good in theory, theres no way (R) will ever be on board with any of this.

Sens. Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin defend filibuster, likely crushing Biden's hopes of passing voting rights bill

Sen. Sinema said she supports the two pieces of voting rights legislation championed by civil rights advocates but does not back filibuster changes.

www.usatoday.com

“Eliminating the 60-vote threshold will simply guarantee that we lose a critical tool that we need to safeguard our democracy from threats in the years to come,” Sinema said.

Sinema said she supports the two pieces of voting rights legislation championed by civil rights advocates but wants more collaboration between Democrats and Republicans to protect voting rights.

“We need a sustained robust effort to defend American democracy, an effort on the part of Democrats, Republicans, Independents and all Americans and communities across this country,” she said.

However, Sinema warned the bills are not enough to counteract state laws that restrict voting.

"These bills help treat the symptoms of the disease, but they do not fully address the disease itself," Sinema said. "And while I continue to support these bills, I will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country."

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Couldn't find this thread yesterday to save my life.

Screw the filibuster.

Shocked it took this long to get to this.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

only problem with this and Manchin's comments are... while good in theory, theres no way (R) will ever be on board with any of this.

Sens. Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin defend filibuster, likely crushing Biden's hopes of passing voting rights bill

Sen. Sinema said she supports the two pieces of voting rights legislation championed by civil rights advocates but does not back filibuster changes.

www.usatoday.com

“Eliminating the 60-vote threshold will simply guarantee that we lose a critical tool that we need to safeguard our democracy from threats in the years to come,” Sinema said.

Sinema said she supports the two pieces of voting rights legislation championed by civil rights advocates but wants more collaboration between Democrats and Republicans to protect voting rights.

“We need a sustained robust effort to defend American democracy, an effort on the part of Democrats, Republicans, Independents and all Americans and communities across this country,” she said.

However, Sinema warned the bills are not enough to counteract state laws that restrict voting.

"These bills help treat the symptoms of the disease, but they do not fully address the disease itself," Sinema said. "And while I continue to support these bills, I will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country."

She's full of shirt. But that's this one man's opinion.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

only problem with this and Manchin's comments are... while good in theory, theres no way (R) will ever be on board with any of this.

Sens. Kyrsten Sinema, Joe Manchin defend filibuster, likely crushing Biden's hopes of passing voting rights bill

Sen. Sinema said she supports the two pieces of voting rights legislation championed by civil rights advocates but does not back filibuster changes.

www.usatoday.com

“Eliminating the 60-vote threshold will simply guarantee that we lose a critical tool that we need to safeguard our democracy from threats in the years to come,” Sinema said.

Sinema said she supports the two pieces of voting rights legislation championed by civil rights advocates but wants more collaboration between Democrats and Republicans to protect voting rights.

“We need a sustained robust effort to defend American democracy, an effort on the part of Democrats, Republicans, Independents and all Americans and communities across this country,” she said.

However, Sinema warned the bills are not enough to counteract state laws that restrict voting.

"These bills help treat the symptoms of the disease, but they do not fully address the disease itself," Sinema said. "And while I continue to support these bills, I will not support separate actions that worsen the underlying disease of division infecting our country."

The farmer supports a new security system for the hen house but wants more collaboration from the foxes to make it work.

 

[MT15]

Manchin and Sinema spent around 2 hours meeting with Biden at the WH tonight.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Is this a good idea? Personally I am against it. I believe both sides lose. You shouldn’t be allowed to change the rules so you can get your way.

Voting rights has nothing to do with "getting your way". It's a fundamental American right.

You're basically saying that saving the filibuster is more important than saving American democracy. You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

I am not under a rock. I haven't cast blame on either party. I simply stated an opinion. I know what the R's did and I know what the D's did. They are petulant children who believe there way is the only way. I just happen to believe it takes common ground to make this country great for everyone.

Being neutral is not the same thing as being objective.

You call the Democrats "petulant children". I say they are the only adults in the room, trying to save democracy from a Republican fascist takeover.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Agreed. It's a bad idea. What happens when there is a power shift and the "other team" has the power. However obviously many of our elected officials (both parties) primarily think about the coming election cycles and no further. Getting reelected matters MOST and they will deal (or not) with the consequences after.

What happens is the voters hold the political party accountable if they go too far.

It may be hard for you to believe, but somehow many democracies throughout the world have managed to survive just fine without the filibuster.