Abolish the filibuster!

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Here’s why:

Why not done?

[Js1 85,110]

Because Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema exist.

But if Senate Republicans continue to balk and delay and try to reduce Biden's COVID relief bill out of fake deficit/debt posturing, that might be the impetus for Joe Manchin to tell them to fuck off.   He is an angry man lately. 

If we can't abolish it, Harris and Schumer need to enforce the actual spirit of it - fucking make Republican dipshits talk.  

[SydneyCarton 47,884]

I'm shocked, shocked that you would find a way to weave Warren into your argument. The only thing more surprising to anyone at Surly would be if TTom fell off the wagon. 

 

That being said I'm all for abolishing the filibuster. 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Reinstate the talking filibuster or remove it entirely.

What we have now is insane.

[wildcat09 29,257]

McConnell is already in effect filibustering the organizing resolution. Fuck him. Abolish that shit entirely.

[Js1 85,110]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Reinstate the talking filibuster or remove it entirely.

What we have now is insane.

Agreed.

Interesting article here with some quotes from a former R Senate staffer: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/kamala-harris-vp-senate-biden-trump-republicans-b1790184.html

Quote

James Wallner, a former Republican Senate staffer who is now a senior fellow at the R Street Institute and writes extensively on Senate procedure, said Harris could singlehandedly undermine Republicans’ use of the filibuster as currently practiced by simply enforcing the Senate rules as they are written.

 

He opined that the Senate’s current practice gives the appearance of leadership, asking senators’ permission before putting legislation to a vote.

 

“I think the problem is that … if you can't get unanimous consent to schedule a vote, you just assume that there's a filibuster, and nobody uses the rules,” he said. “Nobody walks around and says, ‘do we have your permission to do something now,’ but that's how it looks on the outside. And that's how the members themselves telegraph it because it makes it easier for them to blame others for why they're not doing anything.”

 

Wallner posited that if Harris decided to put in the time to preside over the Senate and enforce the body’s rules on voting and debate, it would “take care of the problem [of the filibuster] very aggressively.” But he cautioned that she would need buy-in from Schumer and Senate Democrats.

 

Ultimately, he said the vice president could also force action on Biden’s agenda by simply calling for the Senate to vote rather than allowing the body to spend most of the time in “quorum calls” while waiting for senators to deliver speeches on matters unrelated to the business at hand.  It’s a course of action he recommended to McConnell several years ago to force through more judicial confirmations in less time.

 

“Why are majority Democrats or Republicans putting the Senate in a quorum call and then complaining about filibusters?” He said. “Just stop putting the Senate in a quorum call, stop speaking, stop going to the floor and speaking on unrelated issues, force the minority party to go to the floor and speak, and when nobody is on the floor to speak from the minority party, then call the vote…it’s very easy, and it gets around the filibuster.”

 

Ultimately, the choice of whether to use her role as president of the Senate to personally shepherd Biden’s agenda through the upper chamber will be Harris’ choice alone. But Wallner took pains to stress that she does, in fact, have a choice.

 

“The vice president can actually speed up the senate very, very, very much, but to do so you have to have legislation and other things on the floor because the vice president can't force senators to take things off the calendar,” he said. “But once the floor debate starts, the vice president can force the Senate to act.”

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

9 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm shocked, shocked that you would find a way to weave Warren into your argument

Well she was the spearhead on this from the beginning and that one minute clip is the best concise articulation of why the filibuster needs to go. But yeah, I stan Liz a little too much. Not sorry. 

[Biff Tannen 45,496]

I feel like the fear here is that if Dems get rid of the filibuster, if/when Rs take back over, they'll ram all sorts of crazy shit through.  Well guess what?  I think we have to take that risk.  If Dems were smart they would pass legislation that would stop Rs from doing that shit in the future.  Now is the time for action, not "healing".  You have the ball, now run it into the fucking endzone instead of going for a long field goal and doinking it off the upright.  

Edited January 21, 2021 by Biff Tannen

[Earl Haffler 584]

 

[Wanker Bob 379]

15 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I'm shocked, shocked that you would find a way to weave Warren into your argument. The only thing more surprising to anyone at Surly would be if TTom fell off the wagon. 

 

That being said I'm all for abolishing the filibuster. 

Is it off the wagon? Wouldn't getting sober be getting on the wagon?

[bad_teammate 13,132]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I feel like the fear here is that if Dems get rid of the filibuster, if/when Rs take back over, they'll ram all sorts of crazy shit through. 

Yes, this is how they think.

"But if we take the field, we might lose!!"

[SydneyCarton 47,884]

2 minutes ago, Wanker Bob said:

Is it off the wagon? Wouldn't getting sober be getting on the wagon?

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

5 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, this is how they think.

"But if we take the field, we might lose!!"

Masters of habitual self sabotage.  

[Js1 85,110]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, this is how they think.

"But if we take the field, we might lose!!"

Big props to Harry Reid, because he did not have that myopic thinking when he went nuclear on executive branch nominees and federal judicial appointments. 

Sometimes you just have to act in the moment and what happens in the future, happens.  The GOP will be shitheads regardless - if we don't change the rules, they will to benefit themselves (i.e., Mitch going nuclear on SCOTUS nominations). 

[Js1 85,110]

12 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I feel like the fear here is that if Dems get rid of the filibuster, if/when Rs take back over, they'll ram all sorts of crazy shit through.  Well guess what?  I think we have to take that risk.  If Dems were smart they would pass legislation that would stop Rs from doing that shit in the future.  Now is the time for action, not "healing".  You have the ball, now run it into the fucking endzone instead of going for a long field goal and doinking it off the upright.  

Also, nuking the filibuster gives you 2 more Senators in DC and maybe a 3rd (and 4th) in PR and suddenly, Republicans don't own the Senate anymore.  Adding 2-4 seats for 2022 may save Schumer's "majority" in the end. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

1 minute ago, Js1 said:

 The GOP will be shitheads regardless

I think, I truly think, if you use this as your starting point, your foundation, your overarching framework you can make progress.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

I thought filibuster just meant you could block something only if you are actively posturing and wasting everyone's time reading out of the dictionary or something. I have Wendy Davis and her track shoes in my head when I think of filibuster. 

[Js1 85,110]

Just now, DonkeyCigars said:

I thought filibuster just meant you could block something only if you are actively posturing and wasting everyone's time reading out of the dictionary or something. I have Wendy Davis and her track shoes in my head when I think of filibuster. 

That rule hasn't been strictly enforced.  Kamala could stroll in today and be like "Hey fuckwads, you want to filibuster Joey B's agenda? Go grab your shitty Dr. Seuss book and start reading.  The second you leave the floor, I'm forcing a vote."  

[wildcat09 29,257]

16 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I feel like the fear here is that if Dems get rid of the filibuster, if/when Rs take back over, they'll ram all sorts of crazy shit through.  Well guess what?  I think we have to take that risk.  If Dems were smart they would pass legislation that would stop Rs from doing that shit in the future.  Now is the time for action, not "healing".  You have the ball, now run it into the fucking endzone instead of going for a long field goal and doinking it off the upright.  

The Republicans don't care about passing laws, they just want to obstruct.

[DonkeyCigars 144]

Just now, Js1 said:

That rule hasn't been strictly enforced.  Kamala could stroll in today and be like "Hey fuckwads, you want to filibuster Joey B's agenda? Go grab your shitty Dr. Seuss book and start reading.  The second you leave the floor, I'm forcing a vote."  

So why not force the rule strictly? What is stopping them from taking a harder/more literal enforcement approach (versus having to do away with it all together, which might be more politically difficult, and the end result is the same)?

If you did this, the filibuster would only be valuable if you were coming up on some deadline or compelling event (like a re-election or before congress breaks or something), and it would be like running the clock out and kneeling before scoring or some other analogy where you take the air out of the football with little time left, versus being able to kick a FG and then run the clock out for the rest of the game.

I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn and I'm not a political wonk, or a smart man.

[Biff Tannen 45,496]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The Republicans don't care about passing laws, they just want to obstruct.

This here.  This is their entire philosophy.  Keep power by convincing the rubes that the government can't do anything.  Then break the government so it can't do anything, proving their point.  Rinse.  Repeat.
 

[Gourmand 7,774]

14 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I feel like the fear here is that if Dems get rid of the filibuster, if/when Rs take back over, they'll ram all sorts of crazy shit through.  Well guess what?  I think we have to take that risk.  If Dems were smart they would pass legislation that would stop Rs from doing that shit in the future.  Now is the time for action, not "healing".  You have the ball, now run it into the fucking endzone instead of going for a long field goal and doinking it off the upright.  

Yep, and many of us were pushing this way back in 2005 to Harry Reid when the Republicans had full control. The argument was the same--take a short term loss for long-term democratic gains. Killing the filibuster then would have sailed through without a fight. They should have listened.

[Gourmand 7,774]

6 minutes ago, Js1 said:

That rule hasn't been strictly enforced.  Kamala could stroll in today and be like "Hey fuckwads, you want to filibuster Joey B's agenda? Go grab your shitty Dr. Seuss book and start reading.  The second you leave the floor, I'm forcing a vote."  

Yes, that's one of my pet peeves with the way it is used by Republicans and not enforced by Democrats. Make them actually do the heavy lifting. 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Gourmand

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

12 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Also, nuking the filibuster gives you 2 more Senators in DC and maybe a 3rd (and 4th) in PR and suddenly, Republicans don't own the Senate anymore.  Adding 2-4 seats for 2022 may save Schumer's "majority" in the end. 

AHHHRGHH. GOD DAMMIT

[immamac 42,519]

The problem isn't filibuster. Stop focusing on it please. 

They need to redo the Cloture rule which is intended for housekeeping purposes. 

https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm#:~:text=cloture - The only procedure by,and thereby overcome a filibuster.

[Biff Tannen 45,496]

18 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Also, nuking the filibuster gives you 2 more Senators in DC and maybe a 3rd (and 4th) in PR and suddenly, Republicans don't own the Senate anymore.  Adding 2-4 seats for 2022 may save Schumer's "majority" in the end. 

How long does it take to make a new state?  Could they be in place by 2022?

[SydneyCarton 47,884]

I mean, everyone here seems to be missing the point about abolishing the Filibuster, or at least Donkey Cigar is...

It has less to do with strictly enforcing folks to talk as it does with eliminating the 60 vote super majority requirement on things. So lets state that very clearly and obviously. Eliminating the filibuster means you don't have to chase Republican votes to pass legislation. 

[Biff Tannen 45,496]

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

The problem isn't filibuster. Stop focusing on it please. 

They need to redo the Cloture rule which is intended for housekeeping purposes. 

https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm#:~:text=cloture - The only procedure by,and thereby overcome a filibuster.

Well, I believe if you abolished the filibuster, the cloture rule would go with it, no?

[immamac 42,519]

The filibuster isn't the fucking problem. 

[wildcat09 29,257]

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

The problem isn't filibuster. Stop focusing on it please. 

They need to redo the Cloture rule which is intended for housekeeping purposes. 

https://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm#:~:text=cloture - The only procedure by,and thereby overcome a filibuster.

Or just get rid of the filibuster, which is the only reason the cloture rule exists.

The filibuster isn't in the Constitution. The founders considered a supermajority requirement and decided against it. It's just a rules-change fuckup that segregationists found useful and invented some mythology about its importance to ensure they could preserve their ability to prevent progress. Nuke the fucking thing and be done with it.

[Js1 85,110]

5 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

How long does it take to make a new state?  Could they be in place by 2022?

It took roughly 5 months for Hawaii to become a state (signed into law March 18, 1959; statehood became effective August 21, 1959). 

Hawaii also held a special election for both senators prior to statehood taking into effect (July 28, 1959). They took office effective August 21, 1959.  So the faster you pass and sign the bill, the faster DC could hold special elections and get 2 new Senators in place.  

Edited January 21, 2021 by Js1

[immamac 42,519]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Or just get rid of the filibuster, which is the only reason the cloture rule exists.

The filibuster isn't in the Constitution. The founders considered a supermajority requirement and decided against it. It's just a rules-change fuckup that segregationists found useful and invented some mythology about its importance to ensure they could preserve their ability to prevent progress. Nuke the fucking thing and be done with it.

Incorrect, there needs to be room for debate, but it can't completely block the ability to legislate. There needs to be something in place that legislators can lean on to debate in earnest. 

Cloture shouldn't be so strict when it's obviously obstructive action. That's what the cloture rule is for to housekeep bills that people aren't debating in earnest. 

[Biff Tannen 45,496]

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

That's what the cloture rule is for to housekeep bills that people aren't debating in earnest. 

Seems to be doing a bang up job.

[wildcat09 29,257]

Just now, immamac said:

Incorrect, there needs to be room for debate, but it can't completely block the ability to legislate. There needs to be something in place that legislators can lean on to debate in earnest. 

Cloture shouldn't be so strict when it's obviously obstructive action. That's what the cloture rule is for to housekeep bills that people aren't debating in earnest. 

Debate occurs with or without a supermajority requirement. You're buying the Republicans' bullshit about the purpose of the filibuster. Stop doing that.

[immamac 42,519]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Seems to be doing a bang up job.

Which is why it needs to be fixed.

If there is a majority party in the senate the cloture rules need to be a simple majority of all members not 2/3. 

[wildcat09 29,257]

Just now, immamac said:

Which is why it needs to be fixed.

If there is a majority party in the senate the cloture rules need to be a simple majority of all members not 2/3. 

So...abolish the filibuster?

[Beantown Express 2.0 6,554]

This new state shit is ridiculous.  I like having an even 50 states.  It's a nice number.  Let's add PR and DC and merge North and South Dakota into Dakota.  We can merge Wyoming and Montana into Wontana.  Then we have 50 states and it adds to the Democrats majority in the Senate.  We also don't have the imbalance of states like Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas that have populations less than probably Houston having way too much power.  

Edited January 21, 2021 by Beantown Express 2.0

[immamac 42,519]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

So...abolish the filibuster?

this would effectively neuter the filibuster without removing it as a stick you can use to debate. Unlike your claim of "buying into the republican's bullshit"

[wildcat09 29,257]

Just now, immamac said:

this would effectively neuter the filibuster without removing it as a stick you can use to debate. Unlike your claim of "buying into the republican's bullshit"

You've completely lost me.

You just want a simple majority to have to hold what is effectively the same vote twice to actually pass legislation?

[immamac 42,519]

yes - one to end debate and bring it to a real vote. and once to vote to pass it.

You realize people can force a vote to vote it down too right? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

The outcome goal here is to get legislation passed through the Senate with a simple majority.  Remove the obstruction with extreme prejudice. Call it whatever you want. 

[immamac 42,519]

The problem is every bill doesn't need to be passed, some need to be rejected and we need to move on from them. You are mistaking that every bill needs to get passing votes (which is what the filibuster creates now) if we keep debate open and then say okay fuck it we've heard enough to understand it time to vote that is how you get effective legislation passed. 

[immamac 42,519]

Just now, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The outcome goal here is to get legislation passed through the Senate with a simple majority.  Remove the obstruction with extreme prejudice. Call it whatever you want. 

Incorrect. The outcome is to get legislation VOTED ON. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Just now, immamac said:

The outcome is to get legislation VOTED ON. 

We have different goals.

[immamac 42,519]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

We have different goals.

Because you are a partisan hack fuckwad. 

The problem with the senate isn't the wrong bills passing. It's that legislators are legislating. Vote on every bill. 

The senate's job isn't to make you or me or a group of people happy. It's to legislate on behalf of the American people with their constituents in mind. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Forever the shitcunt

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

1 minute ago, immamac said:

Because you are a partisan hack fuckwad. 

If by partisan fuckward you mean pro-democratic reform and not anti-democracy, then yes, I agree.  

[Beantown Express 2.0 6,554]

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

Because you are a partisan hack fuckwad. 

The problem with the senate isn't the wrong bills passing. It's that legislators are legislating. Vote on every bill. 

The senate's job isn't to make you or me or a group of people happy. It's to legislate on behalf of the American people with their constituents in mind. 

What if your constituents are too stupid to know what's good for them?  

[Biff Tannen 45,496]

6 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Forever the shitcunt

 

Pretty sure there isn't fuck all the turtle can do about it if Dems all get on the same page.

[immamac 42,519]

2 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If by partisan fuckward you mean pro-democratic reform and not anti-democracy, then yes, I agree.  

You were always just team blue, you have no interest in real healthy policies only ones that you deem to be the true beacon of what America is. Your politics are what got us to an obstructionist and extremist state. Now your policies you support could be the same as ones that I do, but the way you are going about it is just as wrong as the Republicans. 

1 minute ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

What if your constituents are too stupid to know what's good for them?  

This is why they are elected officials. It's obvious that right now constituents in Kentucky and a few other places especially have been taken for a ride because they are in fact too stupid to realize what's good for them and keep voting against their own self-interest.