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.

 

[coldseat]

I don't understand how people can keep claiming that the filibuster encourages bi-partisan cooperation when we currently have the filibuster and we barely have any bi-partisan cooperation. People sure do love to hang on to their myths and beliefs even when all the evidence points to the exact opposite.

That may work in a reality where both parties are working on the same foundation of truth and norms and put the country above their political power, but that is not the reality we live in. Republicans don't believe the filibuster fosters bi-partisan cooperation, they know it's a useful tool critical to their minority rule, and that's how they utilize the filibuster. Saying that getting rid of the filibuster is going to increase partisanship is laughable. The way the Republicans utilize the filibuster is the reason we have the levels of partisanship that we do. Why is is so hard for people to see the truth and proceed accordingly?

 

[dillydang]

Screw the filibuster.

Without filibuster, legislation gets passed.
With filibuster:
Antelope Freeway 1/4th mile
Antelope Freeway 1/8th mile
Antelope Freeway 1/16th mile
Antelope Freeway 1/32nd mile
Antelope Freeway 1/64th mile
Antelope Freeway 1/128th mile

Can you say "infinite progression?"

Seriously, I think Robert Reich made a good case for eliminating the filibuster. Maybe it could be eliminated through the courts. That sounds like a decent long-term strategy. In the short term, I'd encourage AZ and WV Dems to call Sinema and Manchin, respectively, and politely ask for the senator to do something constructive to get the voting rights bill passed. Like a carve-out. It's not like bipartisanship is going to erupt in the senate any day now. Joe Manchin put in a lot of work to build a bipartisan coalition for the infrastructure bill. In the end, R's declined to help.

 

[SamAndreas]

Without filibuster, legislation gets passed.
With filibuster:
Antelope Freeway 1/4th mile
Antelope Freeway 1/8th mile
Antelope Freeway 1/16th mile
Antelope Freeway 1/32nd mile
Antelope Freeway 1/64th mile
Antelope Freeway 1/128th mile

Can you say "infinite progression?"

Seriously, I think Robert Reich made a good case for eliminating the filibuster. Maybe it could be eliminated through the courts. That sounds like a decent long-term strategy. In the short term, I'd encourage AZ and WV Dems to call Sinema and Manchin, respectively, and politely ask for the senator to do something constructive to get the voting rights bill passed. Like a carve-out. It's not like bipartisanship is going to erupt in the senate any day now. Joe Manchin put in a lot of work to build a bipartisan coalition for the infrastructure bill. In the end, R's declined to help.

That's kind of different:



At 1:30 into it it says "Antelope Freeway 2.8 light years." That's a long ways off.

This might go as a companion piece, it's been to RENO:

 

[dillydang]

That's kind of different:

It's a quote from a Firesign Theater album "How Can You be in Two Places at Once When You're Not Anywhere at All?" The Antelope Freeway announcement is coming from a futuristic (at the time) car with a talking navigation system. It was comedy interpreting Zeno's Paradox. For me, the current rules of the Senate are much like the Antelope Freeway. A bill keeps getting closer, but it never arrives.

"I Have Been to Reno" reminds me of a 1981 animated short, "Tango."

 

[SamAndreas]

It's a quote from a Firesign Theater album "How Can You be in Two Places at Once When You're Not Anywhere at All?" The Antelope Freeway announcement is coming from a futuristic (at the time) car with a talking navigation system. It was comedy interpreting Zeno's Paradox. For me, the current rules of the Senate are much like the Antelope Freeway. A bill keeps getting closer, but it never arrives.

"I Have Been to Reno" reminds me of a 1981 animated short, "Tango."

"Tango" reminds me of this:

 

[Lapaz]

I’ve heard some good suggestions about changes to the filibuster that could help like making it 3/5th of the present senators to end it, and of course requiring actual debate.

If those don’t work, then I think Democrats should try to pass individual pieces of the voting rights bill. I think a few pieces will get Republican support, particularly updating the electoral college act to prevent another 1/6.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I'm fine with the filibuster and really wish it had not been removed for judges. There needs to be a constitutional amendment that requires 60 votes in the Senate to confirm a judge.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

I'm fine with the filibuster and really wish it had not been removed for judges. There needs to be a constitutional amendment that requires 60 votes in the Senate to confirm a judge.

Then there will be no more confirmed judges in the Senate.

That's why Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster for judge confirmations in the first place back in 2014, because McConnell and his band of fascists were blocking every single one of Obama's judicial nominations.

 

[coldseat]

Then there will be no more confirmed judges in the Senate.

That's why Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster for judge confirmations in the first place back in 2014, because McConnell and his band of fascists were blocking every single one of Obama's judicial nominations.

Biden has actually done a really good job of getting federal judges confirmed. Even better than Trump/McConnell, minus the SC.

It's one of the administrations success thanks to the lack of a filibuster.

 

[zztop]

in a surprise to no one

Voting bill collapses, Democrats unable to change filibuster

Voting legislation that Democrats and civil rights groups argue is vital for protecting democracy has collapsed.

apnews.com

 

[SamAndreas]

in a surprise to no one

Voting bill collapses, Democrats unable to change filibuster

Voting legislation that Democrats and civil rights groups argue is vital for protecting democracy has collapsed.

apnews.com

A case of a thousand word article being encapsulated by one photo:

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Then there will be no more confirmed judges in the Senate.

That's why Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster for judge confirmations in the first place back in 2014, because McConnell and his band of fascists were blocking every single one of Obama's judicial nominations.

Something would eventually give. Even the partisans wouldn't go years and years of not confirming judges if it were in the Constitution. Eventually Presidents would start appointing moderates which is who needs to be in the federal judiciary.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Something would eventually give. Even the partisans wouldn't go years and years of not confirming judges if it were in the Constitution. Eventually Presidents would start appointing moderates which is who needs to be in the federal judiciary.

Why is protecting the filibuster so important to you? It's a relic of the racist Jim Crow era.

It's not in the Constitution and there is nothing noble about it.

Democracies all over the world have somehow been able to survive just fine without a filibuster and super majority rule. Yes, it's a miracle.

 

[MT15]

Something would eventually give. Even the partisans wouldn't go years and years of not confirming judges if it were in the Constitution. Eventually Presidents would start appointing moderates which is who needs to be in the federal judiciary.

Merrick Garland says hello. Republicans have been confirming radical right judges for years. Obama nominated a very moderate Garland, and was blocked by McConnell. Under current circumstances, Democrats can not afford to play by by-gone rules because Republicans are shameless about their own radicalization. Let the majority pass what they will, the voters will supply the corrections.

Republicans support the filibuster because they use it aggressively when they are in the minority, and they count on Democrats using it to prevent them from passing things that most of the country would object to when Rs are in the majority, but that they peddle to their base to raise money by saying they would pass. And they have already gotten rid of it for Supreme Court Justices. I saw several folks saying that there have already been 130 exceptions to the filibuster. It’s useless, except for Republicans.

 

[SFIDC3]

Merrick Garland says hello. Republicans have been confirming radical right judges for years. Obama nominated a very moderate Garland, and was blocked by McConnell. Under current circumstances, Democrats can not afford to play by by-gone rules because Republicans are shameless about their own radicalization. Let the majority pass what they will, the voters will supply the corrections.

Republicans support the filibuster because they use it aggressively when they are in the minority, and they count on Democrats using it to prevent them from passing things that most of the country would object to when Rs are in the majority, but that they peddle to their base to raise money by saying they would pass. And they have already gotten rid of it for Supreme Court Justices. I saw several folks saying that there have already been 130 exceptions to the filibuster. It’s useless, except for Republicans.

I totally agree with this "will of the people/majority be damned"....

 

[tigerfan]

Lol Garland was not a moderate. The left lines to call him a moderate just because you say so. As AG he has demonstrated he is a leftist.

And Obama had every right to nominate a leftist. It’s just funny that you all say he is moderate.

 

[Kerry Won Ohio]

Lol Garland was not a moderate. The left lines to call him a moderate just because you say so. As AG he has demonstrated he is a leftist.

And Obama had every right to nominate a leftist. It’s just funny that you all say he is moderate.

Garland is a leftist? I wish he was....Trump would have been charged by now with a Federal crime for his illegal phone call to the GA Secretary of State after the 2020 election if that were the case.

 

[Lapaz]

Lol Garland was not a moderate. The left lines to call him a moderate just because you say so. As AG he has demonstrated he is a leftist.

And Obama had every right to nominate a leftist. It’s just funny that you all say he is moderate.

What makes Garland a leftist?