Abolish the filibuster!

[Longhorn_Fan68 34080]

56 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

I think we're talking semantics here.  Requiring the speaking filibuster arguably wouldn't "gut" it.

Plus, the Dems need a basis to end the filibuster.  It has to be in the context of something.  They're setting up the "we didn't want to do it, but the Republicans were being unreasonable and left us no other choice" argument.

I tend to think that this is all theater, and that there's going to be filibuster reform in conjunction with passing HR1.

how much is your newsletter?

[Ghost of LL 15669]

47 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

how much is your newsletter?

If you have to ask, . . . .

[Horn Dog 10156]

On 3/7/2021 at 11:33 AM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

imho I think the Dems need to steal a page from the GOP playbook and start fear mongering. For far too long the R's have been successful drumming up fear for things that *could* happen. The messaging needs to clear and concise. I'm a little too Sunday high to write the tagline myself, but the gist needs to be that if the filibuster is not abolished (or at the very least neutered) then the GOP will forever rule from the minority and this country will fail in short order (assuming that's not already inevitable). Someone else can write the message, but it needs to be scary.

Here you go:

(Scene of cloudy skies,  dark ominous scary music)

 Narrator:  "The filibuster needs to go.  Now!  Otherwise, Hillary will run again."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

I guess we’re hoping Biden is being either deliberately obfuscatory or duplicitous with his public stance on the filibuster because any other explanation would be much worse. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

34 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

I guess we’re hoping Biden is being either deliberately obfuscatory or duplicitous with his public stance on the filibuster because any other explanation would be much worse. 

Why not do this:

Dems pass a law that "suspends" the filibuster until January 6th, 2024. On January 7th, 2024 the filibuster resumes. This hedges the bet against Republicans taking back office/power.

Or do it until the end of mid terms 2022, whatever is politically expedient and better?

Why can't you do this?

[bad_teammate 13481]

The filibuster isn't an issue of law, it's just a Senate rule and the Senate rules can be changed by a majority at any time. They could suspend the rule then reinstate the rule, but what's the point? It just sets the precedent of "we temporarily suspend the rule when it suits us" and both sides can use it.

Just change the rule to the talking filibuster. Let Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders (depending on who is in the minority) grandstand for 10 hours and then have the vote anyway. The sitting filibuster we have now makes it impossible to govern, so it cannot be allowed to stand unless the Democratic goal is perpetual Republican domination.

And it's important that they coordinate their messaging. "Restoring the standing filibuster!" or something like that. Make it seem like a noble thing we are restoring after years of crony swampism.

[DonkeyCigars 143]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The filibuster isn't an issue of law, it's just a Senate rule and the Senate rules can be changed by a majority at any time. They could suspend the rule then reinstate the rule, but what's the point? It just sets the precedent of "we temporarily suspend the rule when it suits us" and both sides can use it.

Just change the rule to the talking filibuster. Let Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders (depending on who is in the minority) grandstand for 10 hours and then have the vote anyway. The sitting filibuster we have now makes it impossible to govern, so it cannot be allowed to stand unless the Democratic goal is perpetual Republican domination.

And it's important that they coordinate their messaging. "Restoring the standing filibuster!" or something like that. Make it seem like a noble thing we are restoring after years of crony swampism.

Also the messaging should highlight the quirkiness of the law and how vestiges of traditional governing is awesome and cool. "Doing away with a little bit of American history and culture; aren't you a Patriot? Spit on Paul Revere's grave, why don't you, if you don't support the standing fillibuster"

[bad_teammate 13481]

1 minute ago, DonkeyCigars said:

Also the messaging should highlight the quirkiness of the law and how vestiges of traditional governing is awesome and cool. "Doing away with a little bit of American history and culture; aren't you a Patriot? Spit on Paul Revere's grave, why don't you, if you don't support the standing fillibuster"

 

 

[Js1 86952]

This would be a huge and welcome change.  

 

[Biff Tannen 46063]

5 minutes ago, Js1 said:

This would be a huge and welcome change.  

 

Quote

“I haven’t seen an effort by our leadership to go sit down and work with them. No one's making any effort at all. They just assume it’s going to be holy warfare,” Manchin said.

Well, Joe, have you been paying attention for past (checks notes) 11 years?

[Ghost of LL 15669]

23 minutes ago, Js1 said:

This would be a huge and welcome change.  

 

See--I told you this was all theater.

[wildcat09 29561]

I am so fucking tired of all these shitty wanna-be actors in politics.

[Js1 86952]

7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I am so fucking tired of all these shitty wanna-be actors in politics.

I would be SHOCKED if he ran again in 2024 at 76 years old (which is like the new 50 in the Senate), but maybe he really wants to.  In which case, he's playing it exactly as he is supposed to.

A little bellyaching to get a bit of a deal attributed to him (COVID bill), a little inconsequential blustering (Tanden, as she was going to fail regardless), some filibuster "reform" in exchange for turning West Virginia into Dubai with that infrastructure money (if the GOP filibusters the infrastructure bill, he'd probably sign off on the "reform" pretty quickly)

Bada-bing, bada-boom, he's got his 2024 street cred for WV. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by Js1

[Judge Roybeanbag 11856]

7 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

 

And it's important that they coordinate their messaging. "Restoring the standing filibuster!" or something like that. Make it seem like a noble thing we are restoring after years of crony swampism.

Make the Filibuster Great Again!

[Bama Chick 28596]

I think we're talking semantics here.  Requiring the speaking filibuster arguably wouldn't "gut" it.
Plus, the Dems need a basis to end the filibuster.  It has to be in the context of something.  They're setting up the "we didn't want to do it, but the Republicans were being unreasonable and left us no other choice" argument.
I tend to think that this is all theater, and that there's going to be filibuster reform in conjunction with passing HR1.

Yep.

“Abolish the filibuster!” with no context is just about boring process and procedures that regular people don’t understand nor care about.

“Republicans are using an arcane rule with a racist origin to block raising your minimum wage! Therefore we have to stop their obstruction!” is a MUCH easier message to understand.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

 

More evidence that 40% of the population is hopelessly stupid. 

[Mole 4338]

Making them talk seems like the easy answer. Most people probably assume that’s still how it’s done anyway; it would make for lots of look-at-me theatrics which politicians love; and  it would never kill good legislation just slow things down while still allowing the minority party a chance to make their case.

[LABEVO 928]

7 minutes ago, Mole said:

Making them talk seems like the easy answer. Most people probably assume that’s still how it’s done anyway; it would make for lots of look-at-me theatrics which politicians love; and  it would never kill good legislation just slow things down while still allowing the minority party a chance to make their case.

This and would allow technical fucks to stop the filibuster meaning that most laws would move forward. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

The more I think about it the more I prefer the idea of making the filibuster really painful for the minority over eliminating it entirely. 

The filibuster isn't really the problem, and it's not hard to imagine the really horrible things the Rs would do if it's gone when they regain the majority. The problem is the Rs being obstructionist assholes with every damn bill. Bringing back the talky filly and requiring 40+ votes on the floor would likely significantly curtail its use. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34080]

15 minutes ago, Hookah Horns said:

More evidence that 40% of the population is hopelessly stupid. 

yeah, but the good news is stupid can't filibuster the 61%. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

Also should probably exempt voting rights expansion bills from the filibuster. That's the only way HR-1 has chance other than ditching the filibuster entirely. 

[Hookah Horns 3089]

32 minutes ago, Mole said:

Making them talk seems like the easy answer. Most people probably assume that’s still how it’s done anyway; it would make for lots of look-at-me theatrics which politicians love; and  it would never kill good legislation just slow things down while still allowing the minority party a chance to make their case.

Why do you think it would never kill good bills? 

[Biff Tannen 46063]

1 hour ago, Hookah Horns said:

Why do you think it would never kill good bills? 

I have this question also.  Is there a limit on how many people can do a talking filibuster?  Couldn't they just line up 50 R senators for as long as they can go?  Could they just line back up after they've gone through the rotation?

[Mole 4338]

1 hour ago, Hookah Horns said:

Why do you think it would never kill good bills? 

Never is probably too strong of a word and I guess there would be cases where there's some sort of clock they could run out, but if all they could do is slow things down and make a spectacle of themselves, it seems like it wouldn't be the all powerful and painless thing it is now. Even if they lined up 50 Senators up in a row, eventually that has to end as well, right? These old Senators can only keep this up for so long. I've seen Hand on a Hardbody; there are limits to the human body. I certainly don't fully understand all of the ins and outs of Senate rules, so there could obviously be something that I'm missing.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

This sounds reasonable if you ignore everything the Republicans have done over the last 12-25 years. We know their game dude, you do not need to conduct an experiment for them to also manipulate. 

Yet another clever excuse to continue delaying and not get shit done.

[Js1 86952]

It's performance theater for Manchin and Sinema.  Chill out Hugo. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

2 minutes ago, Js1 said:

It's performance theater for Manchin and Sinema.  Chill out Hugo. 

Can you explain the strategic need or upside to the performance theater given the risks/costs vs rewards?  I can’t square this circle because the longer the delay, the higher the costs and at some point you will run into “we tried everything we could, there was nothing we could do, it’s too close to the midterms to push the issue now, we will just have to win more seats, please send me money.”  

[Biff Tannen 46063]

9 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Can you explain the strategic need or upside to the performance theater given the risks/costs vs rewards?  I can’t square this circle because the longer the delay, the higher the costs and at some point you will run into “we tried everything we could, there was nothing we could do, it’s too close to the midterms to push the issue now, we will just have to win more seats, please send me money.”  

This.  It's like hearing the Rs say how they need to see the evidence relating to the Capitol insurrection.  Uh, we've all seen it motherfuckers.  We watched it on live TV.  Get a move on.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

This motherfucker nuked the judicial filibuster immediately after obstructing the Supreme Court confirmation of Merrick Garland. 

[DonkeyCigars 143]

The status quote lol

[Biff Tannen 46063]

5 minutes ago, DonkeyCigars said:

The status quote lol

I hope that was what he actually said.

[Hookah Horns 3089]

3 hours ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

This motherfucker nuked the judicial filibuster immediately after obstructing the Supreme Court confirmation of Merrick Garland. 

Him saying that is proof this is not where we need to be. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[Satchel 6982]

I’m with Stacey Abrams who believes the corporate community should be prevailed upon to apply pressure on Republicans actively engaged in voter suppression.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

 

[elfenix 34661]

can we just skip the fucking around and hurry up to the finding out part of getting rid of this piece of shit? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

[immamac 44201]

They have to have the fillibuster weaponized against them at least one time in the current sitting congress before they get rid of it, that isn't theater that is basically setting a new precedent and/or status quo that the fillibuster isn't to be weaponized, it's to actually force debate and crossing of the aisle. If they don't have that then nuke it. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Nah, they can just nuke it because it’s fundamentally stupid.  Yes, people will cry for a day or two, then the world moves on.

[immamac 44201]

the optics are important that Republicans are the bad guys not the Democrats. Being a bully is never a good thing, but beating up a bully when they fuck with you is always awesome. Have to let them fuck with you first to punch them with good optics.

[Biff Tannen 46063]

18 minutes ago, immamac said:

the optics are important that Republicans are the bad guys not the Democrats. Being a bully is never a good thing, but beating up a bully when they fuck with you is always awesome. Have to let them fuck with you first to punch them with good optics.

I mean, they've pretty much fucked with both Dems and the American public for a decade.  Not sure how much more proof we need.

[SydneyCarton 49334]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

I mean, they've pretty much fucked with both Dems and the American public for a decade.  Not sure how much more proof we need.

I'm not saying I agree with Immamac, but his point isn't without merit. And it's likely how this plays out. Sure, we know they've been fucking with people for a decade, but as Huge said, Americans aren't known for their memories. It's an issue now. And you need an immediate example. 

[kevwun 16288]

They aren't going to vote for anything Biden proposes.  They are going to fight him on the infrastructure bill too.  Just watch.  It's also going to be very popular just like Covid relief was.  It's like they want to lose more House and Senate seats in 2024.

Edited March 12, 2021 by kevwun

[Neonmoon 38130]

40 minutes ago, immamac said:

They have to have the fillibuster weaponized against them at least one time in the current sitting congress before they get rid of it, that isn't theater that is basically setting a new precedent and/or status quo that the fillibuster isn't to be weaponized, it's to actually force debate and crossing of the aisle. If they don't have that then nuke it. 

Which piece of legislation will they sacrifice? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

35 minutes ago, immamac said:

the optics are important that Republicans are the bad guys not the Democrats. Being a bully is never a good thing, but beating up a bully when they fuck with you is always awesome. Have to let them fuck with you first to punch them with good optics.

The violent insurrection and subsequent acquittal will be hard to top when it comes to bad optics.

[wildcat09 29561]

12 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Which piece of legislation will they sacrifice? 

HR1. 

[Bruh Man 3160]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

the optics are important that Republicans are the bad guys not the Democrats. Being a bully is never a good thing, but beating up a bully when they fuck with you is always awesome. Have to let them fuck with you first to punch them with good optics.

The most opportune time to nuke it would have been when the Republicans were blocking a bill with 70%+ approval.

[Bruh Man 3160]

32 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

HR1. 

You think so? Chris Coons was on Joy Reid's show yesterday. She pushed him hard on the filibuster/HR1...his (non)answer was less than inspiring. He also completely ignored her question about voting rights, which was infuriating.

 

[wildcat09 29561]

Just now, Bruh Man said:

You think so? Chris Coons was on Joy Reid's show yesterday. She pushed him hard on the filibuster/HR1...his (non)answer was less than inspiring. He also completely ignored her question about voting rights, which was infuriating.

 

I've been saying for months that they should abolish it immediately and don't need to worry about optics because they won't matter by November 2022, but the optics of the GOP filibustering the John Lewis Voting Rights Act are pretty undeniably good. Force that and then some public messaging about how the filibuster has historically been used by segregationists to deny black people the franchise, and you get the double whammy of being able to message both that the current GOP is actually no different from old school segregationists and that the filibuster is bad and has always been bad.