Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
5 Comments
Mordhaussays...Harry Reid nuked the filibuster to approve Federal level justices. McConnell just exploited what the former Majority Leader did.
When under pressure from Republicans and Trump in the first two years of Trump's term to do away with the filibuster and allow the all-Republican government to do what the all Democratic one is hoping to do now, McConnell wisely chose not to.
Whether you care for McConnell or not, or if you care for the minority party or not, doing away with the filibuster to allow the party currently in charge to ram legislation through is only going to set precedent for the same thing to happen when the situation changes.
Democrats may think that forcing through HR1 will mean that the Republicans will never control the government again, but that is not going to happen. Americans are fickle and turn on the government in power at the drop of a hat. Case in point, Trump should have never won a term as President in a normal world. People hated Hillary so much that he did.
Turning the Senate into a smaller House of Representatives relying simply on a majority vote for everything would create situations where either side will ram through sweeping changes (or erase those of the previous side) every 4 years or so. What will we do in 2024 if somehow Trump or his lackeys get elected and he has access to a fully Republican senate, congress, and scotus, with no filibuster unlike 2016-2018?
newtboysays...What do you think about removing the automatic filibuster and returning to requiring a senator to stand and speak?
I don't think the minority should have the unbridled ability to effortlessly stop debate and voting on any bill they like, no matter which party they belong to, but I have no problem with them actually extending debate so long as they actually debate (or at least speak). Killing bills and debate because supporters don't have a super majority as the norm has paralyzed government and is rapidly getting worse. It makes compromise unnecessary and obstructionism a platform, and that's not working.
Harry Reid nuked the filibuster to approve Federal level justices. McConnell just exploited what the former Majority Leader did.
When under pressure from Republicans and Trump in the first two years of Trump's term to do away with the filibuster and allow the all-Republican government to do what the all Democratic one is hoping to do now, McConnell wisely chose not to.
Whether you care for McConnell or not, or if you care for the minority party or not, doing away with the filibuster to allow the party currently in charge to ram legislation through is only going to set precedent for the same thing to happen when the situation changes.
Democrats may think that forcing through HR1 will mean that the Republicans will never control the government again, but that is not going to happen. Americans are fickle and turn on the government in power at the drop of a hat. Case in point, Trump should have never won a term as President in a normal world. People hated Hillary so much that he did.
Turning the Senate into a smaller House of Representatives relying simply on a majority vote for everything would create situations where either side will ram through sweeping changes (or erase those of the previous side) every 4 years or so. What will we do in 2024 if somehow Trump or his lackeys get elected and he has access to a fully Republican senate, congress, and scotus, with no filibuster unlike 2016-2018?
siftbotsays...Moving this video to simonm's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.
Mordhaussays...I don't mind the speaking filibuster. I just think doing away with it completely puts in a position where one side can benefit unequally. As an example, doing away with it in regards to appointees led to a supermajority on the Supreme Court. I think having a filibuster available would have stopped at least one of the judges from being approved.
What do you think about removing the automatic filibuster and returning to requiring a senator to stand and speak?
I don't think the minority should have the unbridled ability to effortlessly stop debate and voting on any bill they like, no matter which party they belong to, but I have no problem with them actually extending debate so long as they actually debate (or at least speak). Killing bills and debate because supporters don't have a super majority as the norm has paralyzed government and is rapidly getting worse. It makes compromise unnecessary and obstructionism a platform, and that's not working.
newtboysays...Right now we are in that position, but it's the minority that benefits unequally. Under Republican rule, how many bills were killed by democrats threatening a filibuster? Certainly less than under Democratic rule, republicans love to kill bills so much McConnell is known as the grim reaper for killing legislation as both the majority and minority leader.
When one party, a party that has millions fewer votes for their representatives btw, has the power to stop all legislation as the majority or minority and abuses that power in a partisan way to the detriment of the nation, it makes sense to rewrite the rule changes that put us in that position.
McConnell has threatened exactly that, scorched earth, destroying the legislative process if he can't call all the shots as the minority leader.
As you mentioned, there are ways around it if the leaders are underhanded and purely partisan....democrats have not shown the spine to do that in recent memory, I hope they do now if they don't regulate filibustering.
Time for the nuclear option, whatever that is so long as it stops obstructionist republicans from controlling as the minority. Republicans use it whenever it's convenient, Democrats don't seem to do that, but it's fine to stop them from starting...but requires a rule change to make it unnecessary. Obstructionism has harmed the nation badly, and is the mantra of Republicans....has been all century.
I also have a thin hope that at least two of Trump's appointees to the supreme court can be removed for perjuring themselves at their confirmation hearings, fbi reports declassified since Trump left prove Kavanaugh and Comey did.
I don't mind the speaking filibuster. I just think doing away with it completely puts in a position where one side can benefit unequally. As an example, doing away with it in regards to appointees led to a supermajority on the Supreme Court. I think having a filibuster available would have stopped at least one of the judges from being approved.
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.