Democrats want to dodge filibuster rules

[Ray Glenn]

How about filibuster rules be exactly the same across the board? To pass anything 60 votes necessary. That means 60 votes to "carve out" and 60 votes to change rules. End the debate.

Evil is evil no matter who is involved.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Politics will always be politics. Democrats now are against the filibuster when just a few years ago they used it for their own political purposes, like they will again in the future when the Republicans gain control of the government. If they end the filibuster as they keep talking about doing, then in the future when they would need it they will cry about how Republicans aren't being fair, blah blah.

The same argument can be used against Republicans too. It's very tiring.

 

[Arcangl86]

How about filibuster rules be exactly the same across the board? To pass anything 60 votes necessary. That means 60 votes to "carve out" and 60 votes to change rules. End the debate.

Evil is evil no matter who is involved.

Are you saying that eliminating the filibuster is evil?

 

[Ray Glenn]

Are you saying that eliminating the filibuster is evil?

When the agenda is to vote again on a failed abortion bill voted down weeks ago, that included abortion until the moment of the first breath. It is well within the realm of evil.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

When they can't get the votes, the Democrats want to change the rules.

First, it's doing away with the filibuster to get a law passed to codify abortion rights.

Next is to get more seats on the Supreme Court, as many as 13.

Then of course, to do away with the Electoral College.

 

[Ray Glenn]

The Electoral College is defined within the framework of the Constitution. The only way to abolish it? Amendment. Not in our lifetime.

Not a hill to die on yet.

 

[tz620q]

The Electoral College is defined within the framework of the Constitution. The only way to abolish it? Amendment. Not in our lifetime.

Not a hill to die on yet.

I think you are aware enough to see their playbook as it unfolds. First you vilify the Electoral College for the losses you have suffered when the popular vote went one way and the electoral college the other (like in 2016). You keep using the media to bring up this point until most of the country are convinced that this is an injustice that needs remedy. This is a long range strategy but you can't move a mountain in a 20 second sound byte; but you can with enough of them. Finally when the masses see things your way, you start the actual change rolling and use any means possible to silence dissent.

 

[JacksBratt]

The democrats and enough of the people in the republican party who are not really republican in order to do a lot of damage if the filibuster is ended. This position puts them in a very small window of opportunity to vote out the filibuster on enough things so that they can slowly demolish the government.

Even change the first and second amendments and other parts of the constitution.

It is not the democrats... It is not the republicans... it is the evil elites like George Soros, Klaus Shuwab, and others with huge amounts of money.

They "own" Pelosi, Biden, Chuck Shumer, Gavin Newsom, and others who are creating dire situations in the US.


This small window of opportunity is between now and the mid terms.... Get your popcorn... and pray for God's hand in this.

 

[iarwain]

When the Democrats took over the Senate, they said the filibuster was racist. This after using it over 300 times when Trump was in office.

Personally, I like the filibuster. If it was too easy to change things, the country would look like a ping pong ball every four years. On the other hand, politicians need to learn to work more for the people than for their own parties.

 

[JacksBratt]

When the Democrats took over the Senate, they said the filibuster was racist. This after using it over 300 times when Trump was in office.

Personally, I like the filibuster. If it was too easy to change things, the country would look like a ping pong ball every four years. On the other hand, politicians need to learn to work more for the people than for their own parties.

Without the filibuster... It would be like going down a steep hill, in a large truck, with a full load... and putting it in neutral and letting it roll.

 

[Fantine]

How about filibuster rules be exactly the same across the board? To pass anything 60 votes necessary. That means 60 votes to "carve out" and 60 votes to change rules. End the debate.

Evil is evil no matter who is involved.

So you're saying Republicans' stacking the courts is evil?
Did Kavanaugh, Barrett or Gorsuch get 60 votes?
The filibuster is not in the Constitution. It began after the Civil War to enact laws restricting blacks from full participation in our society.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

So you're saying Republicans' stacking the courts is evil?
Did Kavanaugh, Barrett or Gorsuch get 60 votes?
The filibuster is not in the Constitution. It began after the Civil War to enact laws restricting blacks from full participation in our society.

The Filibuster is a rule which the Senate made. The Senate has the Constitutional
Right to make its own rules.

 

[Fantine]

The Filibuster is a rule which the Senate made. The Senate has the Constitutional
Right to make its own rules.

And discard them when they have outlived their usefulness, or when polarization and obstructionism become paralyzing.

 

[hedrick]

Biden is opposed to removing the filibuster. Nor is it clear that even without it a law protecting abortion rights could be passed.

In principle I am opposed to the filibuster. However as a practical matter with nearly evenly balanced parties, it protects us from legal ping pong.

 

[RileyG]

When they can't get the votes, the Democrats want to change the rules.

First, it's doing away with the filibuster to get a law passed to codify abortion rights.

Next is to get more seats on the Supreme Court, as many as 13.

Then of course, to do away with the Electoral College.

Amen

 

[Aldebaran]

And discard them when they have outlived their usefulness, or when polarization and obstructionism become paralyzing.

Polarization and obstructionism isn't coming from the filibuster. It's coming from the people people want to abolish it in order to enact their own polarization and obstructionism, and are willing to change the rules in order to accomplish that.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

And discard them when they have outlived their usefulness, or when polarization and obstructionism become paralyzing.

It's up to the Senators, which are both Democrats and Republicans and put the rule
in place. The only time one side wants to remove it, is when they have an issue, they
know they can't win.

 

[Fantine]

Let's be logical. A majority is 51 votes.

The scales are already tilted towards small red states. In SD there are two Senators for 700,000 people. On California, there are 2 senators for over 20 million.
So you take a legislature where the deck is already stacked against progressives and say there needs to be a 3/5 majority...
TBT, the 50 blue state senators probably represent 3/5 of the population already.
Progressives are fed up with the rules and budgets foisted on them by farm states.

 

[parousia70]

When they can't get the votes, the Democrats want to change the rules.

First, it's doing away with the filibuster to get a law passed to codify abortion rights.

Next is to get more seats on the Supreme Court, as many as 13.

This is not exclusive to Democrats.
Republicans changed the filibuster rules all the time, and Mitch McConnell singlehandedly changed the number on the supreme court from 9 to 8 for more than a year.

I guess it's only OK when Republicans do it?

 

[Fantine]

Exactly, parousia. Both parties, if they are truly interested in keeping the filibuster, need to cooperate on committees and negotiate with one another in good faith. It's in their hands.

And not faux cooperation--like when five or six Republicans collaborated on the Infrastructure bill, making it worse and whittling it down by holding out the carrot that they might actually support it--but when the vote came up, wouldn't even vote "yes" on the bill they had helped write (by downsizing it and making it worse.)